Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Low-Rank QTT-based Finite Element Method for Elasticity Problems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Reformulating 2D elasticity finite elements in the QTT format with Z-ordering and domain splitting yields the accuracy of standard FEM at a fraction of the memory, even on singular geometries.

desk verdict Solid and useful extension of QTT-FEM to 2D elasticity, but the generality and exponential-convergence claims outrun the evidence—worth refereeing, not accepting as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07778 v1 pith:KGAOI57G submitted 2025-01-14 math.NA cs.NA

Elena Benvenuti , Gianmarco Manzini , Marco Nale , Simone Pizzolato This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3074S0565F55
keywords finiteelementmethodquantizedtensortrainlow-rankformatlinearelasticitydomainpartitioningZ-ordermatrixcompression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the quantized tensor train (QTT) format, a low-rank compressed representation of matrices and vectors, can be the backbone of a two-dimensional linear-elasticity finite element solver rather than a plug-in compression step. It claims that every core operation, including mesh numbering, stiffness assembly, load computation, and the linear solve, can be redesigned so that the stiffness matrix and right-hand side are formed directly in QTT form, and that this pays off: on the same accuracy level, the QTT solver stores orders of magnitude less data and keeps its representation ranks low, even for singular geometries like a notched plate or an L-shaped panel. The reason to care is practical: high-resolution elasticity simulations on ordinary hardware become feasible on meshes that would otherwise be marginal, because the compressed representation replaces the familiar polynomial growth in storage with a near-logarithmic one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantized tensor train (QTT) format: a matrix or vector is reshaped into a d-dimensional array with mode size 2 in each dimension and then compressed into tensor-train cores of small rank, giving storage that scales like O(d $r^{2}$) instead of the full array size. The companion device is the Z-order renumbering of degrees of freedom, which interleaves the binary digits of the two spatial indices so that structured matrix products can be performed with the Z-order Kronecker product; without this ordering the ranks would grow, and with it they stay small. The Jacobian determinant of each element is expanded as a linear function of the element's row and column indices, which lets the elemental integrals be evaluated once and shifted into place for all elements at once, so that the whole stiffness matrix is generated directly in QTT form.

What would settle it

On a quadrilateral subdomain whose sides are not parallel, assemble the stiffness matrix two ways: once with the linear-in-(i,j) Jacobian expansion of Eq. (20) and once with an exact per-element integration on the same mesh. If, as the mesh is refined by raising d, the energy-norm difference between the two solutions does not fall to the level of the QTT truncation tolerance, the linear Jacobian assumption is producing a systematic error rather than a negligible one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the assembled stiffness matrix and load vector of the elasticity problem admit a direct, low-rank QTT representation, and that this representation can be produced by reformulating the finite element workflow. The reformulation has four ingredients: partitioning the domain into quadrilateral subdomains, renumbering degrees of freedom in Z-order (the binary interleaving of the two grid indices), assembling each elemental contribution with shift matrices that place values directly into the compressed format, and stitching subdomains together by replicating interface nodes and adding a penalty-type term that enforces continuity. With these ingredients, the paper reports energy errors that decay exponentially in the number of representation parameters, QTT ranks that grow sublinearly with refinement level, and memory usage far below that of a traditional sparse finite element implementation, across a 20-subdomain cantilever, a single-edge notched specimen, and an L-shaped plate.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that each element's Jacobian determinant varies linearly with the element's row and column index in the mesh; this is exact only for uniform grids on parallelogram subdomains, and for general quadrilateral subdomains it is used without proof or error analysis, so an inaccurate approximation would silently corrupt the assembled stiffness matrix.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On fine meshes, the QTT solver stores the stiffness matrix and right-hand side using orders of magnitude less memory than a conventional sparse solver, and the saving grows with the number of degrees of freedom.
  • The energy error decays exponentially in the number of QTT parameters, with the exponent tied to the singularity order of the exact solution, so singular geometries can be resolved without adaptive refinement up to machine precision.
  • Because Z-ordering keeps the effective rank growing sublinearly with the number of levels, the practical cost of adding refinement levels stays far below the cost of a standard finite element discretization.
  • Domain partitioning with replicated interface nodes and continuity constraints extends the method beyond square domains to any geometry that can be cut into quadrilateral blocks, as demonstrated on the cantilever, notched, and L-shaped tests.
  • The gain is not a drop-in improvement: it requires reworking node ordering, degree-of-freedom numbering, assembly, and matrix-vector algebra, so the method is a redesign of the finite element workflow, not an accelerated version of it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the paper's reach is to apply the same assembly on a genuinely non-affine quadrilateral partition and watch the effective rank: if the rank no longer grows sublinearly with d, the method's compression guarantee would be limited to parallelogram-like blocks, a consequence the paper does not draw.
  • The same Z-order and subdomain-concatenation recipe could in principle be lifted to three-dimensional elasticity, but the QTT ranks would likely grow with the third dimension; whether the storage advantage survives there is an open question the paper leaves implicit.
  • Because the method resolves singularities by refining the mesh exponent d rather than by mesh adaptation, it suggests a hybrid strategy: use QTT refinement up to the point where ranks would blow up, then switch to adaptive refinement or local enrichment, a natural extension the paper mentions only as future work.
  • The success of Z-ordering hints that any space-filling curve ordering, not just Morton order, might control rank growth in tensor-structured FEM; comparing orderings on the same test problems would be a cheap way to see how sensitive the rank ceiling is to the numbering scheme.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a quantized tensor train (QTT) based finite element method for two-dimensional linear elasticity. The method partitions the domain into quadrangular subdomains, uses a Z-ordering of degrees of freedom, assembles stiffness matrices and load vectors directly in the QTT format, and solves the resulting system with the AMEn solver. The authors report convergence studies, memory savings, and rank reduction relative to the FEniCS finite element software for a cantilever beam, a single-edge notched tensile specimen, and an L-shaped panel. The stated main result is that combining FEM's geometric flexibility with QTT's compression yields significant memory and rank reductions while retaining accuracy, including in problems with singularities.

Significance. The paper extends the QTT-FEM methodology from scalar elliptic problems (e.g., Poisson) to vector-valued linear elasticity, which is a natural and potentially useful direction given the growing interest in low-rank tensor solvers. The authors provide detailed implementation aspects, including node reordering, stiffness assembly, boundary masks, and a domain-splitting strategy, and they report substantial memory compression compared to a standard sparse FEM code. If the convergence and generality claims were rigorously established, the approach could be attractive for large-scale structural simulations. However, several load-bearing issues currently limit the strength of these claims: the interface treatment is a penalty method mislabeled as Lagrange multipliers with no error analysis, the Jacobian determinant expansion underlying the low-rank assembly is only exact for affine subdomains and is untested on genuinely non-affine geometries, and the reported 'exponential convergence' relies on reference-line constants chosen after the fact. The manuscript is therefore best viewed as a promising but incomplete contribution at this stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.1, Eqs. (9)-(11) and the four equations following (11)] The interface treatment is called a 'Lagrangian multiplier approach,' but the equations shown are a penalty method, not Lagrange multipliers. For a constraint U^(m1)=U^(m2), a symmetric penalty would add +λ(U^(m1)−U^(m2)) to the first subdomain's equation and −λ(U^(m1)−U^(m2)) to the second subdomain's equation; the manuscript writes the same sign in both equations. Moreover, no rule is given for choosing λ beyond 'a positive real number,' no error analysis or consistency proof is provided, and the last displayed equation is corrupted (it reads '=(m1)Ni1j1+f(m2)Ni2j2' instead of a proper right-hand side). This is load-bearing because the correctness of the global linear system depends on the constraint being imposed consistently.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (19) and (20)] The linear expansions J(i,j)(ξ,η)=J(0,0)+i(J(1,0)-J(0,0))+j(J(0,1)-J(0,0)) and its determinant are exact only when every element in a subdomain is the image of the reference square under a single affine map, i.e., when the subdomain is a parallelogram with a uniform tensor-product mesh. For a general isoparametric quadrilateral, the Jacobian is rational in (ξ,η) and the determinant is not affine in the element indices (i,j). The paper provides no error bound for this quadrature-style simplification and no numerical test on a genuinely non-affine subdomain. All three examples in Section 5 are unions of axis-aligned rectangles, where Eq. (20) is exact. Consequently, the abstract's claim that the method handles 'a computational domain that is more general than a square' is only demonstrated for unions of rectangles, and the claimed generality to curved or non-affine quadrilateral partitioning is unsupported.
  3. [Section 5.3 and Figures 6-8] The claimed exponential convergence is not established by a parameter-free comparison. In Figures 6-8, the reference lines use constants C_α, α, b_α, θ, c_α that are chosen to match the computed points, and the points are colored red or gray post hoc depending on whether they lie on the expected line. The exponent κ=5 in the N_d-vs-d plots is imported from the scalar QTT theory of [29] and is not derived for the vector elasticity system. As a result, the observed alignment of red points with the reference lines is at least in part a consequence of the fitting procedure, and the reader cannot independently assess whether the QTT ranks and parameters converge at the predicted rates.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Section 5.3] There is an internal inconsistency about the role of interface terms. In Section 3.3 the authors state that interface terms are left unspecified because they 'add to zero when we assemble the global linear system as proved in (8),' but then Section 3.3.1 adds penalty equations (or purported Lagrange multiplier terms) at the interfaces. This conflation of a flux-continuity argument with an explicit constraint-enforcement step needs to be clarified, and the final assembly (Section 3.6.1) must be reconciled with the local equilibrium equations of Section 3.3.1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 4] The loop is written 'for m = 1 to n' but the number of subdomains is q; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.4, paragraph after Eq. (17)] The set of reference element corners is printed as '{(−1,−1),(−1,1),(1,1),(−1,2)}'; the last entry should be (1,−1).
  3. [Section 5.3, text and Figure 6 caption] The text contains several typos: 'he goals and scope' should be 'the goals and scope', 'in n implementation' should be 'in an implementation', and 'Figure 6(c)c' has a stray 'c'. Additionally, the expression 'logk_2 E' is unclear; it likely means log_2(log_2 E) or similar and should be typeset consistently.
  4. [Section 3.4, Eq. (20)] The notation |J(i,j)(ξ,η)| is used for the determinant, but in the preceding text the symbol |J(ξ,η)| is also used; please clarify that these are determinants and not absolute values of matrices.
  5. [Section 5.2, Figure 5(f)] In the legend of Figure 5(f), the label 'stiffness K, ε=10^{-5}' is duplicated; one of the entries should likely be 'stiffness K, ε=10^{-3}'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QTT-FEM algorithm is a constructive extension of external QTT machinery, and the numerical claims are benchmarked against FEniCS and external convergence theory.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. Section 3 constructs the subdomain stiffness matrices and force vectors from the standard isoparametric FEM integrals (Eqs. (12)-(18)); Section 4 represents them in QTT format using Z-ordering and z-kron operations, citing the external works [28,33] for the scalar machinery rather than relying on the authors' own prior results. The Jacobian expansion in Eq. (19)-(20) is an approximation for non-affine quadrilateral maps, but it is not an input disguised as a prediction: it is an assumption whose accuracy is a separate correctness/scope question, and the paper's experiments on rectangular subdomain decompositions do not exercise the non-affine case. The exponential-convergence comparison in Section 5.3 imports kappa=5 and the singularity exponents beta from external sources [29,38]; these are independent anchors, not definitions of the computed errors. The constants C_alpha, b_alpha, c_alpha, and theta appearing in the reference lines of Figures 6-8 are intercepts/plot scales, not fitted parameters that enter the solver or the error computation, so the agreement displayed there is illustrative rather than a circular reduction. Memory and rank measurements are direct comparisons against FEniCS, which is an external benchmark. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on a handful of user-selected constants and on the unverified transfer of scalar QTT theory to vector elasticity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Penalty parameter gamma = mean of diagonal entries of K(m)
    Used in the global assembly to enforce interface continuity; no convergence study with respect to gamma is provided.
  • Penalty parameter lambda = positive real number, value unspecified
    Used in Section 3.3.1 to impose nodal compatibility; the paper does not state its value or scaling.
  • Reference-line constants alpha, C_alpha, b_alpha, theta, c_alpha = chosen per test case (e.g., alpha=1,0.5,0.9; C_alpha=1; b_alpha=1,0.04,1; theta=0.9,1,1; c_alpha=8,1,6)
    These constants set the reference lines in Figures 6-8 and are selected to align with the computed data; they are not predicted by the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each subdomain is a quadrilateral meshed with a tensor-product grid with 2^d nodes per side.
    Required for the QTT reshaping and Z-order; stated in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The Jacobian determinant of each element varies linearly with the element indices (i,j), Eq. (20).
    This simplification enables low-rank assembly but is exact only for affine or parallelogram subdomains; no error estimate is provided.
  • domain assumption Interface flux continuity holds so that interface integrals vanish, Eq. (8).
    Used to justify dropping interface terms; relies on H^1 regularity of the solution.
  • domain assumption The exponential convergence rate kappa=5 for scalar QTT-FEM from Ref. [29] carries over to vector elasticity.
    The paper uses the theoretical limit from [29] as the reference line, but provides no proof for elasticity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Low-Rank QTT-based Finite Element Method for Elasticity Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KGAOI57G

@misc{pith2026250107778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Low-Rank QTT-based Finite Element Method for Elasticity Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KGAOI57G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07778}
}
read the original abstract

We present an efficient and robust numerical algorithm for solving the two-dimensional linear elasticity problem that combines the Quantized Tensor Train format and a domain partitioning strategy. This approach makes it possible to solve the linear elasticity problem on a computational domain that is more general than a square. Our method substantially decreases memory usage and achieves a notable reduction in rank compared to established Finite Element implementations like the FEniCS platform. This performance gain, however, requires a fundamental rethinking of how core finite element operations are implemented, which includes changes to mesh discretization, node and degree of freedom ordering, stiffness matrix and internal nodal force assembly, and the execution of algebraic matrix-vector operations. In this work, we discuss all these aspects in detail and assess the method's performance in the numerical approximation of three representative test cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mesh partition for the Jacobian calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Geometry, boundary conditions, and representative meshes for the test cases of Section 5. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cantilever beam test case: bilogarithmic plot of QTT and FEniCS energy seminorm ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy seminorm error assuming different AMEn approximation accuracies for the single edge notch tensile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cantilever beam test case: (a) memory storage versus the number of degrees of freedom for different approximation accuracy ε and (b) effective rank re versus the number of degrees of freedom. Single edge notch tensile test: (c) memory storage versus degrees of freedom …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cantilever beam test case: (a) Energy seminorm error E (red dots) and reference exponential convergence of equation Cα2 −αd (continuous line) for increasing number of levels d. (b) Energy seminorm error E (red dots) and reference line logk 2 Ed = −bαNd for variable num…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Single edge-notch tensile test case: (a) Energy seminorm error E (red dots) and reference exponential convergence of equation Cα2 −αd (continuous line) for increasing number of levels d. (b) Energy seminorm error E (red dots) and reference line logk 2 Ed = −bαNd for va…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: L-shaped panel test case: (a) Energy seminorm error E (red dots) and reference exponential convergence of equation Cα2 −αd (continuous line) for increasing number of levels d. (b) Energy seminorm error E (red dots) and reference line logk 2 Ed = −bαNd for variable numb…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum-Inspired Solver for Simulating Material Deformations

    quant-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A tensor-network finite element solver for 2D linear elasticity shows logarithmic memory and time scaling versus classical FEM, with agreement to an analytical beam solution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    Kazeev, C

    V. Kazeev, C. Schwab, Quantized tensor-structured finite elements for second-order elliptic PDEs in two dimensions, Numerische Mathematik 138 (2018) 133–190. 27

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Ladev` eze, J

    P. Ladev` eze, J. Passieux, D. N´ eron, The LATIN multiscale computational method and the proper generalized decomposition, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 199 (21-22) (2010) 1287–1296

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Ladev` eze, Nonlinear computational structural mechanics: New approaches and non- incremental methods of calculation, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    P. Ladev` eze, Nonlinear computational structural mechanics: New approaches and non- incremental methods of calculation, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Chinesta, A

    F. Chinesta, A. Leygue, F. Bordeu, J. Aguado, E. Cueto, D. Gonz´ alez, I. Alfaro, A. Am- mar, A. Huerta, PGD-based computational vademecum for efficient design, optimization and control, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 20 (2013) 31–59

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Bellman, Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour, Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, NJ, 1961

    R. Bellman, Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour, Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, NJ, 1961

    work page 1961

  6. [5]

    Oseledets, Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM, Journal on Scientific Computing 33 (5) (2011) 2295–2317

    I. Oseledets, Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM, Journal on Scientific Computing 33 (5) (2011) 2295–2317

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Oseledets, E

    I. Oseledets, E. Tyrtyshnikov, TT-cross approximation for multidimensional arrays, Linear Algebra and its Applications 432 (1) (2010) 70–88

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Oseledets, E

    I. Oseledets, E. Tyrtyshnikov, Breaking the curse of dimensionality, or how to use SVD in many dimensions, SIAM, Journal on Scientific Computing 31 (5) (2009) 3744–3759

    work page 2009

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    I. V. Oseledets, On a new tensor decomposition, Doklady Akademii Nauk 427 (2) (2009) 168–169

    2009

  2. [9]

    I. V. Oseledets, E. E. Tyrtyshnikov, Recursive decomposition of multidimensional tensors, Doklady Akademii Nauk 427 (1) (2009) 14–16

    2009

  3. [10]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326 (1) (2011) 96–192

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326 (1) (2011) 96–192

    2011

  4. [11]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully, Physical Review B 73 (2006) 094423

    2006

  5. [12]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Physical Review Letters 91 (2003) 147902

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Physical Review Letters 91 (2003) 147902

    2003

  6. [13]

    S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Physical Review B 48 (1993) 10345–10356

    1993

  7. [14]

    Khoromskij, o(d log n)-Quantics approximation of n-d tensors in high-dimensional numerical modeling, Constr

    B. Khoromskij, o(d log n)-Quantics approximation of n-d tensors in high-dimensional numerical modeling, Constr. Approx. 34 (2) (2011) 257–280

    2011

  8. [15]

    Oseledets, Approximation of matrices with logarithmic number of parameters, Doklady Mathematics 80 (2) (2009) 653–654

    I. Oseledets, Approximation of matrices with logarithmic number of parameters, Doklady Mathematics 80 (2) (2009) 653–654. 26

    2009

  9. [16]

    Oseledets, Approximation of 2 d × 2d matrices using tensor decomposition, SIAM, Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 31 (4) (2010) 2130–2145

    I. Oseledets, Approximation of 2 d × 2d matrices using tensor decomposition, SIAM, Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 31 (4) (2010) 2130–2145

    2010

  10. [17]

    Grasedyck, Polynomial approximation in hierarchical tucker format by vector-tensorization, Tech

    L. Grasedyck, Polynomial approximation in hierarchical tucker format by vector-tensorization, Tech. rep., Institut f¨ ur Geometrie und Praktische Mathematik (2010)

    2010

  11. [18]

    Kazeev, B

    V. Kazeev, B. Khoromskij, Low-rank explicit QTT representation of the Laplace operator and its inverse, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 33 (3) (2012) 742–758

    2012

  12. [19]

    V. A. Kazeev, B. N. Khoromskij, E. E. Tyrtyshnikov, Multilevel Toeplitz matrices generated by tensor-structured vectors and convolution with logarithmic complexity, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 35 (3) (2013) A1511–A1536

    2013

  13. [20]

    B. N. Khoromskij, Tensor numerical methods in scientific computing, Vol. 19 of Radon Series on Computational and Applied Mathematics, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    S. V. Dolgov, B. N. Khoromskij, I. V. Oseledets, Fast solution of parabolic problems in the ten- sor train/quantized tensor train format with initial application to the Fokker-Planck equation, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 34 (6) (2012) A3016–A3038

    2012

  15. [22]

    Kazeev, M

    V. Kazeev, M. Khammash, M. Nip, C. Schwab, Direct solution of the chemical master equation using quantized tensor trains, PLOS Computational Biology 10 (3) (2014) 742–758

    2014

  16. [23]

    Kazeev, C

    V. Kazeev, C. Schwab, Quantized tensor-structured finite elements for second-order elliptic PDEs in two dimensions, Numer. Math. 138 (1) (2018) 133–190

    2018

  17. [24]

    Bachmayr, V

    M. Bachmayr, V. Kazeev, Stability of low-rank tensor representations and structured multilevel preconditioning for elliptic PDEs, Foundations of Computational Mathematics 20 (5) (2020) 1175–1236

    2020

  18. [25]

    Kazeev, I

    V. Kazeev, I. Oseledets, M. Rakhuba, C. Schwab, QTT-finite-element approximation for mul- tiscale problems I: model problems in one dimension, Advances in Computational Mathematics 43 (2) (2017) 411–442

    2017

  19. [26]

    Kazeev, I

    V. Kazeev, I. Oseledets, M. Rakhuba, C. Schwab, Quantized tensor FEM for multiscale prob- lems: Diffusion problems in two and three dimensions, Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 20 (3) (2022) 893–935

    2022

  20. [27]

    Kazeev, O

    V. Kazeev, O. Reichmann, C. Schwab, Low-rank tensor structure of linear diffusion operators in the TT and QTT formats, Linear Algebra and Its Applications 438 (11) (2013) 4204–4221

    2013

  21. [28]

    Markeeva, I

    L. Markeeva, I. Tsybulin, I. Oseledets, QTT-isogeometric solver in two dimensions, Journal of Computational Physics 424 (2021) 109835

    2021

  22. [30]

    V. Kazeev, Quantized tensor-structured finite elements for second-order elliptic PDEs in two dimensions, Phd thesis, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a- 010554062 (2015)

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Fraschini, V

    S. Fraschini, V. Kazeev, I. Perugia, Symplectic QTT-FEM solution of the one-dimensional acoustic wave equation in the time domain, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11321, submitted on 18 Nov 2024 (November 2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kazeev, C

    V. Kazeev, C. Schwab, Tensor approximation of stationary distributions of chemical reaction networks, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 36 (3) (2015) 1221–1247

    2015

  25. [33]

    Markeeva, I

    L. Markeeva, I. Tsybulin, Building Z-permuted matrices in the QTT format, Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 60 (12) (2020) 2108–2115

    2020

  26. [34]

    Morton, A Computer Oriented Geodetic Data Base and a New Technique in File Sequencing, International Business Machines Company New York, 1966

    G. Morton, A Computer Oriented Geodetic Data Base and a New Technique in File Sequencing, International Business Machines Company New York, 1966

    1966

  27. [35]

    Dolgov, D

    S. Dolgov, D. Savostyanov, Alternating minimal energy methods for linear systems in higher dimensions, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 36 (5) (2014) A2248–A2271

    2014

  28. [36]

    Dolean, P

    V. Dolean, P. Jolivet, F. Nataf, An Introduction to Domain Decomposition Methods: Algo- rithms, Theory, and Parallel Implementation, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2015. doi:10.1137/1.9781611974065

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, 2006

    K. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    Zienkiewicz, R

    O. Zienkiewicz, R. Taylor, J. Zhu, The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals, Elsevier, 2005

    2005

  31. [39]

    Baratta, J

    I. Baratta, J. Dean, J. Dokken, M. Habera, J. Hale, C. Richardson, M. Rognes, M. Scroggs, N. Sime, G. Wells, DOLFINx: The next generation FEniCS problem solving environment, preprint (2023). doi:10.5281/zenodo.10447666

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Szab´ o, I

    B. Szab´ o, I. Babuˇ ska, Finite element analysis: Method, verification and validation, John Wiley & Sons, 2021. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ·104 log10(dofs) Memory [Mib] FEniCSQTT-FEMε= 10−3 QTT-FEMε= 10−5 QTT-FEMε= 10−7 (a) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.