Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Optimizing Hard Thresholding for Sparse Model Discovery

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding an annealing step that reactivates a shrinking fraction of thresholded library terms improves hard-thresholding sparse model discovery in noisy, large-library settings.

desk verdict A modest, honest paper showing annealed random reactivation can improve SINDy and hard thresholding pursuit on several benchmarks, but the cooling schedule itself is never isolated from extra random exploration and extra iterations. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20256 v1 pith:WW7GCEXH submitted 2025-04-28 math.OC cs.LGcs.NAmath.DSmath.NA

Derek W. Jollie , Scott G. McCalla This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.LGcs.NAmath.DSmath.NA MSC 65K1090C26
keywords sparsemodeldiscoverySINDyhardthresholdingpursuitsimulatedannealingcoolingscheduledictionarylearningdynamicalsystemscoefficienterror
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

Hard-thresholding sparse discovery algorithms, such as SINDy (sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics), permanently remove library terms whose coefficients fall below a threshold, so a term dropped early under noisy derivative estimates can never come back. This paper introduces an annealing modification: after each thresholding step, a fraction of the removed terms is randomly reactivated into the candidate set, and that fraction follows a cooling schedule that decreases from 1 to 0. The resulting algorithms, SHTreP-A and SINDy-Anne, are compared with their non-annealed counterparts on the Lorenz, FitzHugh–Nagumo, logistic, and forced van der Pol systems, and on experimental projectile-motion data. The annealed versions generally achieve lower relative coefficient errors, particularly in noisy settings with large function libraries. The paper's goal is to show that a simple stochastic reactivation mechanism makes hard-thresholding optimization more reliable without changing the underlying sparse model-selection problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the annealed hard-thresholding update. In SHTreP-A, each iteration computes $\tilde{\xi}^k = H_s(\xi^k + \Theta(X)^T(\dot{X}-\Theta(X)\xi^k))$, where $H_s$ keeps the $s$ largest-magnitude entries; annealing then selects each zero entry with probability $p_k$ and adds it to the candidate support set $S_k$, followed by the debiasing step $\xi^{k+1} = \arg\min_{\mathrm{supp}(x)\subseteq S_k}\|\Theta(X)x-\dot{X}\|_2$. The cooling schedule $\{1,0.99,\dots,0.8,0.7,\dots,0.1,0.09,\dots,0.01,0\}$ controls how many removed terms are reconsidered over time. This random reactivation is what distinguishes SHTreP-A and SINDy-Anne from their base algorithms: it acts as a 'heat bath' that lets the optimization escape the trap of a prematurely pruned support set.

What would settle it

Run SHTreP-A and SHTreP with a common total iteration budget on the same Lorenz, FitzHugh–Nagumo, logistic, and forced van der Pol ensembles, selecting the cooling schedule, $s$, and $\lambda$ for both methods by cross-validation at each noise level; if SHTreP-A's relative $\ell^1$ coefficient error is not below SHTreP's, the claimed improvement is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that annealing the hard-thresholding step improves sparse model discovery. Instead of discarding thresholded coefficients forever, the optimizer re-admits them: at iteration $k$ it reactivates each currently zero coefficient with probability $p_k$, where $p_k$ follows a cooling schedule (starting at 1 and decaying to 0), then solves the restricted least-squares problem on the resulting support set. This allows terms whose early elimination was an artifact of noise or of an incomplete support set to return once the coefficient estimate has improved. The authors report that SHTreP-A outperforms plain hard thresholding pursuit (SHTreP) on noisy ensembles of the Lorenz, FitzHugh–Nagumo, logistic, and forced van der Pol systems, and that SINDy-Anne matches or improves SINDy depending on the problem; on the experimental projectile-motion data, only SHTreP-A produces a physically plausible $x$-equation. The discovery is that allowing lost support to be recovered can matter as much as enforcing sparsity, and a simple stochastic reactivation step provides that recovery.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-selected cooling schedule, sparsity level, and threshold values generalize across problems; the paper provides no sensitivity analysis or automated tuning rule, so if the gains vanish when all methods are tuned fairly, the central claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the Lorenz, FitzHugh–Nagumo, and forced van der Pol benchmarks, SHTreP-A lowers both the average and the standard deviation of relative $\ell^1$ coefficient error compared with SHTreP as sampling noise grows.
  • In problems with small libraries and low sparsity, such as FitzHugh–Nagumo, annealing can give no measurable advantage: SINDy and SINDy-Anne perform the same.
  • On the logistic equation with a sigmoid trajectory, SHTreP-A outperforms all other algorithms as noise increases, but with exponential-decay data annealing plays no significant role.
  • For the forced van der Pol system with a 44-term time-dependent library, SHTreP and SHTreP-A both achieve accurate models while the SINDy variants struggle, and the paper reports that chaotic motion aids learning.
  • On the projectile-motion data, only SHTreP-A recovers a physically reasonable $x$-equation: no spurious constant force and no positive $x$-acceleration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This reader's inference: the reactivation step is independent of the specific optimizer, so the same annealing scheme could be bolted onto any hard-thresholding or greedy sparse-regression method, including weak-form variants, without further changes.
  • This reader's inference: the benefit appears to grow with library size and noise, which suggests annealing is most valuable when the dictionary is deliberately over-complete and many irrelevant terms compete for the top-$s$ slots.
  • This reader's inference: the cooling schedule is a discrete probability path, so a natural testable extension is to tune it automatically on a validation trajectory, or to make the temperature adaptive, raising it whenever the support set changes rapidly.
  • This reader's inference: because the paper follows classic simulated-annealing guidance, a direct quantitative comparison would be to run simulated annealing over the coefficient vector itself and ask whether support-set annealing matches its recovery rate.
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 introduces an annealing scheme for hard thresholding algorithms used in sparse model discovery. The scheme reactivates a random fraction of deactivated library terms, with the fraction decreasing according to a cooling schedule, and is applied to two base algorithms: SINDy and a hard thresholding pursuit variant (SHTreP). The authors compare annealed and unannealed versions on Lorenz, FitzHugh–Nagumo, logistic, forced Van der Pol, and experimental projectile data, measuring relative ℓ1 and ℓ2 coefficient errors under added Gaussian noise. They report that annealing generally improves accuracy, especially for SHTreP in large-library settings, while acknowledging cases where it fails. The central claim is that annealing allows early-pruned terms to be recovered and thus improves sparse model discovery.

Significance. The proposed modification is simple, broadly applicable to hard-thresholding optimizers, and motivated by a real failure mode: early pruning of important terms in noisy or large-library settings. If the improvement is robust, the method could be practically useful, and the authors honestly report cases where annealing does not help (e.g., Figure 5 and the Conclusion). The paper also benefits from benchmarking on several nonlinear systems, including chaotic, excitable, entrained, and real experimental data, and from reporting failure cases rather than overclaiming. However, the evidence is entirely empirical, and the current experiments do not isolate the proposed mechanism from confounds such as additional iterations and random exploration, nor do they provide code, data, or sensitivity analysis. These gaps prevent the central claim from being conclusively established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Description of Algorithm, Eq. (1) and the annealing step] The annealed algorithm differs from the baseline in two confounded ways: it adds random support perturbations and it runs for many more iterations (the full cooling schedule plus up to 500 iterations). The reported comparisons in Figures 2–8 therefore do not establish that the cooling schedule, rather than the extra random exploration or the larger iteration budget, is responsible for the error reductions. The authors should ablate SHTreP-A against SHTreP with a constant reactivation probability, against SHTreP with a single initial random support perturbation, and against SHTreP run for the same total number of iterations as the annealed variant.
  2. [Description of Algorithm (annealing schedule)] The paper states that the cooling schedule 'provides another set of hyperparameters for the optimization scheme and can make a significant effect on the obtained minimizer,' but no sensitivity analysis or principled selection rule is given for the schedule, and each benchmark uses a different hand-chosen schedule with per-problem sparsity s and threshold λ. Without systematic variation of the schedule and without seed-averaging over the random reactivation draws, the consistent gains could reflect favorable tuning rather than a general property of annealing.
  3. [Comparisons between original and annealed algorithms] The numerical experiments omit essential reproducibility details: the derivative approximation used to form Ẋ is not specified (only 'a numerical approximation' is mentioned), the termination condition is not stated, and no code or data are provided. Because the paper's evidence is entirely empirical, these omissions prevent verification of the central claim and of Table I.
  4. [Lorenz System and Figures 2–8] Figures 2–8 report standard deviations over 300 noise instances, but SHTreP-A and SINDy-Anne are stochastic algorithms; the text does not state how many algorithm runs per noise instance are used or how the random reactivation draws are seeded. The shaded widths are therefore ambiguous: if each noise instance yields a single stochastic trajectory, the reported standard deviations do not capture the algorithm's own variance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Logistic] There is a typo in this section: 'becuase' should be 'because'.
  2. [Description of Algorithm] The annealing schedule is written as '{1,.99,...,.8,.7...,.1,.09,.08,...,.01,0}', which is ambiguous; please provide an explicit sequence or pseudocode.
  3. [References] References [36] and [37] appear to be the same paper by van Breugel, Kutz, and Brunton with near-identical titles; please merge or disambiguate.
  4. [Lorenz System] The sentence 'all the models fixate on incorrect solutions in the absence of sampling noise but actually improve their fit significantly when sampling noise is added' is surprising and unexplained; either provide a mechanism or soften the claim.
  5. [Projectile Motion, Table I] The projectile-motion models are reported without any uncertainty or stability assessment across the stochastic runs; a statement about how representative the shown equations are would strengthen the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the annealing proposal is evaluated against external synthetic and experimental benchmarks, and no load-bearing claim reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper proposes an algorithmic modification—reactivating a fraction of hard-thresholded terms with a cooling schedule—and evaluates it empirically against the unmodified SINDy and SHTreP baselines on external benchmarks (Lorenz, FitzHugh–Nagumo, logistic, forced Van der Pol, and experimental projectile motion). There is no derivation of a target result from a fitted constant, no parameter that is fit to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction, and no invocation of a self-citation as the load-bearing justification for the method. The cooling schedule, sparsity s, and thresholds lambda are hand-selected per problem, and the authors explicitly acknowledge that the schedule introduces hyperparameters and can significantly affect the minimizer; this is an experimental-calibration and robustness concern, not circular reasoning. The paper also honestly reports failure cases, including cases where annealing is insufficient at low noise and cases where annealing fails when SINDy does not. Because the central claim is supported by comparisons to external benchmarks rather than by circular construction, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical algorithmic comparison. It relies on hand-picked hyperparameters such as sparsity, thresholds, cooling schedule, library degree, and stopping criteria, rather than on a derivation. No invented physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The main load-bearing assumptions are inherited from SINDy, hard thresholding pursuit, and simulated annealing practice.

free parameters (7)
  • Annealing reactivation schedule p_k = {1, .99, ..., .8, .7, ..., .1, .09, ..., .01, 0}
    Manual cooling schedule; the paper notes it can significantly affect the obtained minimizer.
  • Sparsity s for SHTreP = s=15 (Lorenz), s=6 (FitzHugh-Nagumo), s=3 (logistic), s=10 (forced van der Pol), sx=2, sy=3 (projectile)
    Chosen per system with no automated criterion or sensitivity study.
  • SINDy thresholds lambda = Lorenz lambda_x=0.4, lambda_y=0.6, lambda_z=0.2; FHN 0.025; logistic 0.05 and 0.001; van der Pol 0.005; projectile…
    Problem-specific thresholds; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Polynomial library degree = Degree 6 Lorenz, degree 4 FHN and logistic, degree 10 logistic x0=10, degree 3 plus time-dependent terms van der Pol…
    User-supplied dictionary controls the search space and affects all comparisons.
  • Termination iteration count = About 500 iterations
    Arbitrary stopping rule stated in the algorithm description.
  • Moving-average smoothing passes for projectile data = 30
    Applied to projectile data before fitting; changes derivative estimates and results.
  • Time-dependent frequency candidates alpha_i = alpha_i = pi/i for i=1,...,6
    Forced van der Pol library assumes unknown forcing frequency near pi/5.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dictionary Theta(X) contains the true active terms of the unknown system.
    Every sparse regression claim in the paper presumes the unknown dynamics are representable in the chosen polynomial or time-dependent library.
  • domain assumption Numerical differentiation of noisy X(t) yields an acceptable proxy for b = dX/dt.
    All four algorithms solve Theta(X) xi approximately equal to Xdot, but no differentiation method is specified and no bias correction is applied.
  • domain assumption Annealing guidelines from simulated annealing transfer to hard thresholding optimization.
    The cooling schedule is justified only by analogy to Geman-Geman simulated annealing; no new convergence result is given.
  • standard math Hard thresholding pursuit convergence results from compressed sensing apply to these dictionaries.
    SHTreP is built on Foucart's HTP, but the paper does not verify restricted isometry properties for the generated libraries.
  • domain assumption For projectile data, x and y motions decouple.
    Assumed before fitting Table I; no cross-coupling terms are included in the learned models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Hard Thresholding for Sparse Model Discovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WW7GCEXH

@misc{pith2026250420256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Hard Thresholding for Sparse Model Discovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WW7GCEXH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20256}
}
read the original abstract

Many model selection algorithms rely on sparse dictionary learning to provide interpretable and physics-based governing equations. The optimization algorithms typically use a hard thresholding process to enforce sparse activations in the model coefficients by removing library elements from consideration. By introducing an annealing scheme that reactivates a fraction of the removed terms with a cooling schedule, we are able to improve the performance of these sparse learning algorithms. We concentrate on two approaches to the optimization, SINDy, and an alternative using hard thresholding pursuit. We see in both cases that annealing can improve model accuracy. The effectiveness of annealing is demonstrated through comparisons on several nonlinear systems pulled from convective flows, excitable systems, and population dynamics. Finally we apply these algorithms to experimental data for projectile motion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20256 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: An example plot of the Van der Pol Oscillator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This uses λ = 0.025 for both ˙x and ˙y and s = 6. FIG. 4: ℓ 1 error for the Logistic equation starting at x0 = 0.01 to give a sigmoid curve with increasing additive Gaussian noise. This utilizes follows the same color scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. illustrates that SHTreP-A outperforms all the algorithms as we increase the noise. However, when x0 = 10, we see in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bongard and H

    J. Bongard and H. Lipson, Automated reverse engineer- ing of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 9943 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    R. Wang, D. Maddix, C. Faloutsos, Y. Wang, and R. Yu, Bridging physics-based and data-driven modeling for learning dynamical systems, in Learning for dynamics and control (PMLR, 2021) pp. 385–398

    2021

  3. [3]

    Berry and S

    T. Berry and S. Das, Learning theory for dynamical sys- tems, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems 22, 2082 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    J. S. North, C. K. Wikle, and E. M. Schliep, A review of data-driven discovery for dynamic systems, International Statistical Review 91, 464 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Tran and R

    G. Tran and R. Ward, Exact recovery of chaotic systems from highly corrupted data, Multiscale Modeling & Sim- ulation 15, 1108 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    M. Dam, M. Brøns, J. Juul Rasmussen, V. Naulin, and J. S. Hesthaven, Sparse identification of a predator- prey system from simulation data of a convection model, Physics of Plasmas 24 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Boninsegna, F

    L. Boninsegna, F. N¨ uske, and C. Clementi, Sparse learn- ing of stochastic dynamical equations, The Journal of chemical physics 148 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    D. A. Messenger and D. M. Bortz, Weak sindy: Galerkin- based data-driven model selection, Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 19, 1474 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Long, Y. Lu, X. Ma, and B. Dong, Pde-net: Learning pdes from data, in International conference on machine learning (PMLR, 2018) pp. 3208–3216

    2018

  2. [10]

    S. Cai, Z. Mao, Z. Wang, M. Yin, and G. E. Kar- niadakis, Physics-informed neural networks (pinns) for fluid mechanics: A review, Acta Mechanica Sinica 37, 1727 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Cuomo, V

    S. Cuomo, V. S. Di Cola, F. Giampaolo, G. Rozza, M. Raissi, and F. Piccialli, Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next, Journal of Scientific Computing 92, 88 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Boull´ e and A

    N. Boull´ e and A. Townsend, A mathematical guide to op- erator learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14688 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang, Physics-informed machine learn- ing, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 422 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    G. Lin, C. Moya, and Z. Zhang, Learning the dynami- cal response of nonlinear non-autonomous dynamical sys- tems with deep operator neural networks, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 125, 106689 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhat- tacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anandkumar, Fourier neu- ral operator for parametric partial differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    L. Lu, P. Jin, G. Pang, Z. Zhang, and G. E. Karniadakis, Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators, Nature machine intelligence 3, 218 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Y. Liu, S. G. McCalla, and H. Schaeffer, Random feature models for learning interacting dynamical systems, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society A 479, 20220835 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Jollie, J

    D. Jollie, J. Sun, Z. Zhang, and H. Schaeffer, Time-series forecasting, knowledge distillation, and refinement within a multimodal pde foundation model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11609 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, and H. Schaeffer, Prose: Predict- ing multiple operators and symbolic expressions using multimodal transformers, Neural Networks 180, 106707 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Finally we will compare these four algorithms in the following section

    yielding SINDy-Anne. Finally we will compare these four algorithms in the following section. Given time se- ries data X, SHTreP uses a numerical approximation to ˙X to find a sparse fit to a library of user-defined functions Θ(X). We iteratively seek a sparse coefficient vecto...

  13. [21]

    Fasel, J

    U. Fasel, J. N. Kutz, B. W. Brunton, and S. L. Brunton, Ensemble-sindy: Robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learning and con- trol, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 478, 20210904 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identifica- tion of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3932 (2016), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1517384113

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    D. A. Messenger and D. M. Bortz, Weak sindy for partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 443, 110525 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Schaeffer and S

    H. Schaeffer and S. G. McCalla, Sparse model selection via integral terms, Physical Review E 96, 023302 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Schaeffer, G

    H. Schaeffer, G. Tran, and R. Ward, Extracting sparse high-dimensional dynamics from limited data, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 78, 3279 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    H. Schaeffer, Learning partial differential equations via data discovery and sparse optimization, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engi- neering Sciences 473, 20160446 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Zhang and H

    L. Zhang and H. Schaeffer, On the convergence of the sindy algorithm, Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 17, 948 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1189828

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Fasel, E

    U. Fasel, E. Kaiser, J. N. Kutz, B. W. Brunton, and S. L. Brunton, Sindy with control: A tutorial, in 2021 60th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC) (IEEE,

    2021

  21. [29]

    A. C. Bekar, E. Haghighat, and E. Madenci, Multiphysics discovery with moving boundaries using ensemble sindy and peridynamic differential operator, Engineering with Computers , 1 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Viknesh, Y

    S. Viknesh, Y. Tatari, and A. Arzani, Adam-sindy: An efficient optimization framework for parameterized non- linear dynamical system identification, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16528 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mars Gao and J

    L. Mars Gao and J. Nathan Kutz, Bayesian autoen- coders for data-driven discovery of coordinates, governing equations and fundamental constants, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 480, 20230506 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    M. D. Champneys and T. J. Rogers, Bindy – bayesian identification of nonlinear dynamics with reversible-jump markov-chain monte-carlo (2024), arXiv:2408.08062 [stat.ML]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    B. M. de Silva, D. M. Higdon, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, Discovery of physics from data: Universal laws and discrepancies, Frontiers in artificial intelligence 3, 25 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    A. A. Klishin, J. Bakarji, J. N. Kutz, and K. Manohar, Statistical mechanics of dynamical system identification, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01723 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    R. Chartrand, Numerical differentiation of noisy, non- 7 smooth, multidimensional data, in 2017 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (Glob- alSIP) (IEEE, 2017) pp. 244–248

    2017

  28. [36]

    Chartrand, Numerical differentiation of noisy, non- smooth data, International Scholarly Research Notices 2011, 164564 (2011)

    R. Chartrand, Numerical differentiation of noisy, non- smooth data, International Scholarly Research Notices 2011, 164564 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Van Breugel, J

    F. Van Breugel, J. N. Kutz, and B. W. Brunton, Numerical differentiation of noisy data: A unifying multi-objective optimization framework, IEEE Access 8, 196865 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    van Breugel, J

    F. van Breugel, J. Nathan Kutz, and B. W. Brun- ton, Numerical differentiation of noisy data: A unify- ing multi-objective optimization framework, IEEE Ac- cess 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3034077 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Geman and D

    S. Geman and D. Geman, Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images, IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine in- telligence , 721 (1984)

    1984

  32. [40]

    Kay, The risk of bias in denoising methods: Examples from neuroimaging, PLoS One 17, e0270895 (2022)

    K. Kay, The risk of bias in denoising methods: Examples from neuroimaging, PLoS One 17, e0270895 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Blumensath and M

    T. Blumensath and M. E. Davies, Iterative hard thresh- olding for compressed sensing, Applied and Computa- tional Harmonic Analysis 27, 265 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Foucart, Hard thresholding pursuit: an algorithm for compressive sensing, SIAM Journal on numerical analysis 49, 2543 (2011)

    S. Foucart, Hard thresholding pursuit: an algorithm for compressive sensing, SIAM Journal on numerical analysis 49, 2543 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Gilpin, Chaos as an interpretable benchmark for forecasting and data-driven modelling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05266 (2021)

    W. Gilpin, Chaos as an interpretable benchmark for forecasting and data-driven modelling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05266 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lorenz, Deterministic nonperiodic flow, Journal of At- mospheric Sciences 20 (1963)

    E. Lorenz, Deterministic nonperiodic flow, Journal of At- mospheric Sciences 20 (1963)

    1963

  37. [46]

    J. C. Crocker and D. G. Grier, Methods of digital video microscopy for colloidal studies, Journal of colloid and interface science 179, 298 (1996)

    1996

  38. [100]

    for i = 1,..., 6 near α = π 5

    The parameters are s = 10, λ = 0.005. for i = 1,..., 6 near α = π 5 . The augmented function li- brary [Θ(X), Φ(t)] contains 44 basis functions (we also include cos(αit) and t sin(αit) terms), and in practice, the library will contain more as the true ω remains un- known. Due ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.