Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Maximum volume coordinates for Grassmann interpolation: Lagrange, Hermite, and errors

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that Grassmann manifold interpolation can be done in matrix-decomposition-free maximum-volume local coordinates while preserving the same asymptotic error orders as Euclidean interpolation.

desk verdict A clean, useful paper on decomposition-free Grassmann coordinates, with an honest gap between the MV heuristic and the error theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01574 v2 pith:5SXNNMUP submitted 2025-06-02 math.NA cs.NA

Rasmus Jensen , Ralf Zimmermann This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 15B1015B5765F9953C3053C80
keywords Grassmannmanifoldmaximum-volumecoordinatesinterpolationHermitelocalretractionparametricmodelreductionerrorbounds
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

This paper introduces maximum-volume (MV) local coordinates for interpolating functions whose values lie on the Grassmann manifold Gr(n,p). Unlike Riemannian normal coordinates, these coordinates require no matrix decompositions: data are mapped through the chart $B = U_2 U_1^{-1}$ and mapped back through $\varphi(B)$, which only needs solving with $I+B^T B$. The paper proves an explicit error-transmission bound, $\mathrm{dist}(P,\tilde P) \le \arcsin(M\|B-\tilde B\|_F)$ with $M \le \sqrt{5/2}+1$, which implies the same asymptotic error order as in Euclidean space: $O(h^2)$ for two-point Lagrange and $O(h^4)$ for Hermite interpolation. Because ill-conditioned row blocks can corrupt the chart, the paper proposes selecting the $p$ rows of each Stiefel representative with maximum absolute determinant (maxvol), and shows numerically that this makes interpolation accuracy comparable to Riemannian normal coordinates while avoiding decomposition costs. A reader should care because this offers a cheaper route to Grassmann interpolation in parametric model reduction and other high-dimensional applications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the chart-parameterization pair $(\Psi, \varphi)$ and the maxvol row-selection rule. $\Psi$ sends a projector to the matrix $B = U_2 U_1^{-1}$ of a linear fractional map between complementary coordinate patches; $\varphi(B)$ is the orthogonal projector onto $\mathrm{span}([I_p; B])$ and is a retraction on $\mathrm{Gr}(n,p)$. The maxvol rule selects, among all $p \times p$ subblocks of a Stiefel representative, one with maximal absolute determinant, which controls $\|U_1^{-1}\|_F$ and hence the chart's conditioning. Theorem 2 combines Lemma 1's sandwich bound with Lemma 5's curvature bound ($\kappa \le 2$) and Lemma 4's bound on $d\varphi$ to turn coordinate-domain interpolation errors into manifold-distance errors.

What would settle it

Run the FitzHugh-Nagumo POD interpolation experiment with maxvol terminated after a few iterations, as in the paper's Figure 6, at a parameter interval where the left and right POD bases have nearly disjoint dominant row patterns, and record the relative interpolation error as the step size $h$ shrinks; if the error stops following $O(h^2)$ or $O(h^4)$ scaling despite the MV-chart being used, the practical claim that MV coordinates keep interpolation numerically reliable would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Grassmann interpolation can be formulated in decomposition-free local coordinates without losing asymptotic accuracy. The coordinate chart $\Psi$ maps a projector represented by $U = [U_1; U_2]$ to $B = U_2 U_1^{-1}$; its inverse $\varphi(B) = [I; B](I + B^T B)^{-1}[I, B^T]$ is globally defined and forms a retraction. The paper quantifies the conditioning of $\varphi$ (worst-case amplification $M \le \sqrt{5/2}+1$) and of the chart, showing the chart can be arbitrarily ill-conditioned unless the row block $U_1$ is chosen well. Choosing $U_1$ as a maxvol subblock (maximizing $|\det U_1|$) bounds $\|U_1^{-1}\|_F$ by $\sqrt{p(n-p)+p}$ and makes the coordinates usable. Theorem 2 then shows $\mathrm{dist}(P,\tilde P) \le \arcsin(M\|B-\tilde B\|_F)$, so Euclidean interpolation errors of order $h^k$ survive transfer to the manifold; in particular, two-point Lagrange interpolation is $O(h^2)$ and Hermite interpolation is $O(h^4)$.

Load-bearing premise

The practical success of the method rests on the assumption, which the paper leaves as an open question, that a single row-permutation matrix picked by maxvol at one sample point keeps the upper $p \times p$ blocks of all other sample matrices well-conditioned; the paper provides no a priori bound for multiple data matrices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the coordinates avoid SVDs and matrix exponentials, Hermite interpolation no longer requires differentiating matrix decompositions, lowering preprocessing cost.
  • Theorem 2 guarantees that any Euclidean interpolation scheme with asymptotic error $O(h^k)$ in the coordinate domain yields $O(h^k)$ interpolation error on the Grassmann manifold.
  • For two-point data, Lagrange interpolation scales as $O(h^2)$ and Hermite interpolation as $O(h^4)$, matching the Euclidean rates.
  • MV coordinates are not just an accuracy improvement but a numerical necessity: without them, the FitzHugh-Nagumo POD experiment shows interpolation errors that are orders of magnitude larger and spike-driven.
  • The same coordinate framework extends to more than two data points, provided all samples lie in a single chart, making higher-order interpolants straightforward.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-permutation assumption could be tested directly: if a data set contains two samples whose maxvol-optimal row blocks are nearly disjoint, a chart chosen from one sample will be ill-conditioned at the other; a multi-sample maxvol that optimizes the worst case over all samples would close the open question posed in the paper.
  • The bound $M \le \sqrt{5/2}+1$ is global and not sharp, as the paper's own Figure 3 shows slack; a tighter curvature- or data-dependent constant would sharpen the error estimates and might be derivable from the principal-angle parametrization.
  • Because the maxvol row-selection problem is the same one faced by DEIM and CUR decompositions, algorithms and guarantees from that literature could be imported to build provably good multi-sample charts.
  • The three-step error accounting (preprocessing, interpolation, postprocessing) extends naturally to other retractions on the Grassmann manifold, offering a way to rank retractions by their preprocessing conditioning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a matrix-decomposition-free local coordinate chart on the Grassmann manifold Gr(n,p), introduces maximum-volume (MV) coordinates obtained by row-permuting Stiefel representatives, and analyzes interpolation in these coordinates. The main theoretical result (Theorem 2, Section 3.6) shows that, under a single-chart assumption and a smallness condition, the Grassmann distance between the true and interpolated subspaces is bounded by arcsin(M||B - Btilde||_F), with M <= sqrt(5/2)+1, so the asymptotic interpolation order is preserved: O(h^2) for two-point Lagrange and O(h^4) for two-point Hermite interpolation. The paper also proves that the proposed parameterizations form a retraction (Theorem 1), bounds the conditioning of the chart and its inverse (Lemmas 3 and 4), and bounds the curvature of unit-speed Grassmann geodesics (Lemma 5). Two numerical experiments, one academic and one on FitzHugh-Nagumo POD subspaces, compare MV-coordinate interpolation with Riemannian normal coordinate interpolation.

Significance. If the claims are accepted, the paper provides a useful alternative to Riemannian normal coordinates for Grassmann interpolation, with the practical advantage that preprocessing does not require large-scale SVDs or matrix exponentials. The error-propagation theorem is cleanly derived with explicit constants, and the conditioning analysis of the coordinate chart and parameterization is a valuable contribution. The authors make their source code available, which strengthens reproducibility. The principal weakness is that the row-selection algorithm for MV coordinates has no multi-sample guarantee; this is acknowledged as an open question in Section 5, but it means the headline error-order claim is established only conditionally on the existence of a single well-conditioned chart covering all data. The paper is honest about this gap, but the scope of the central claim should be stated more prominently.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4, Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 selects a single row-permutation matrix P by applying maxvol to each sample individually and then choosing the candidate that minimizes the worst inverse-block norm, but it provides no a priori guarantee that the selected P is admissible for all samples. A concrete failure mode is obtained with p=2, U1 = [I2; 0] and U2 = [0; I2] in R^{4x2}: the maxvol permutation for U1 must select rows {1,2}, while for U2 it must select rows {3,4}, so whichever candidate permutation is chosen, the upper 2x2 block of the other matrix is identically zero and the MV chart is undefined. Since the asymptotic error estimate in Theorem 2 presupposes a single well-conditioned chart covering all data, the practical Algorithm 2 pipeline does not inherit the estimate for arbitrary data sets.
  2. [Abstract / Remark 2 / Section 5] The headline statement that the asymptotic interpolation error on Gr(n,p) has the same order as in Euclidean space is proven only under the explicit assumption that all sample points and interpolated images lie in a single chart with a bounded inverse-block norm. This condition is not verified by Algorithm 2 and is left as an open question in Section 5. The authors should state this condition explicitly in Theorem 2 and its surrounding discussion, and should qualify the abstract and Remark 2 so that readers do not attribute an unconditional guarantee to Algorithm 2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Theorem 1] The proof that Q(P(t)) can be chosen smoothly in t is only sketched via a Gram-Schmidt extension; since Gram-Schmidt on a fixed complement can fail when the complement ceases to be transverse, a short argument using a local parallel frame or a standard reference on smooth frame completion would make the proof complete.
  2. [Section 4.2] The finite-difference approximation used for d/dI_a u(t) and d/dI_a v(t) is not specified; please state the step size and the stencil used to compute the derivative data.
  3. [Algorithm 2] The selection criterion in Algorithm 2 is written as ||(f_i[1:p,1:p])^{-1}||_F, but the upper block must be understood as the block after applying the candidate permutation; please make this explicit in the pseudocode.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The statement that the coordinates 'do not require any matrix decompositions' is too strong given that Section 3.2 evaluates the parameterization via a matrix square root or a Cholesky decomposition; the authors should rephrase the claim, for example to 'no SVD or matrix exponential of n x n matrices'.
  5. [Section 4.1] The text says 'when permuting the columns of the point data' before computing MV coordinates; since the permutation acts on the rows of the Stiefel representation, this should read 'rows'.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'discrete empericial' (Section 3.4), 'quanitfied' and 'forward to' (Section 5), 'conditons' and 'Boundary conditons' (Section 4.2), and 'goedesicallly' (Appendix A); a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MV-coordinate error bound is derived from external lemmas and self-contained proofs; only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations are present.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the central error theorem (Theorem 2, Section 3.6) is dist(P, P̃) ≤ arcsin(M||B − B̃||_F) with M ≤ sqrt(5/2)+1. It is derived from Lemma 1, explicitly quoted from external source [34]; Lemma 5, whose proof is self-contained and uses only the standard geodesic formula; and Lemma 4, whose proof is a direct SVD computation. The only self-authored reference in those proofs is [55, Lemma 3], for the standard inequality ||XY||_F ≤ ||X||_2||Y||_F; this is a known, independently checkable matrix fact, not an imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The asymptotic statements O(h^2) and O(h^4) come from composing that bound with the classical Euclidean Lagrange/Hermite error estimates [46], not from fitting any parameter to data. The MV coordinate construction relies on maximum-volume literature [47,53] external to the authors, and the paper proves the retraction property (Theorem 1) and the condition-number bound itself. Self-citations [23] and [38] are used for context, derivative-data comparison, and standard Grassmann background; none is load-bearing for the claimed error-order result. The genuine limitation—Algorithm 2 selects one permutation from per-sample maxvol runs, and the paper states 'How to truly generalize the maximum-volume sub-block search to a data set of multiple matrices is an open question' (Section 5)—is a correctness/completeness caveat, not a circular step: Theorem 2 is conditional on having coordinate images B and B̃ and makes no unconditional multi-sample claim. Overall, the derivation does not reduce its output to its inputs; the score of 1 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data in the theoretical derivations; the error bounds are parameter-free up to standard constants. The row-permutation matrix P in Algorithm 2 is computed from the data and is a heuristic element, but it is not a fitted scalar. The axioms listed are the background facts the proofs rely on.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard facts about the Grassmann manifold and its canonical metric (quotient structure, tangent space characterization (4), principal angle distance).
    Used throughout Section 2 as background; taken from [38] and [3].
  • standard math Lemma 1 sandwich inequality for embedded submanifolds from [34].
    Invoked in Theorem 2 to pass from ambient Euclidean distance to Riemannian distance on Gr(n,p).
  • standard math Maxvol submatrix bound from [47, Lemma 2.1].
    Remark 1 relies on it for ∥U1^{-1}∥_F ≤ sqrt(p(n-p)+p) when U1 maximizes the volume.
  • domain assumption All sample data, after the MV permutation, lie in the domain of a single coordinate chart.
    Explicit in Section 3.3; interpolation in local coordinates assumes one chart covers the data.
  • domain assumption Low-rank regime n >> p, with only (n-p) by p matrices formed explicitly.
    Motivates the decomposition-free approach and the complexity claims in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption POD subspaces and their derivatives, obtained by differentiating the SVD, faithfully represent the parametric dynamics in the neuron experiment.
    Section 4.2; the finite difference step for derivative approximation is not specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximum volume coordinates for Grassmann interpolation: Lagrange, Hermite, and errors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SXNNMUP

@misc{pith2026250601574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximum volume coordinates for Grassmann interpolation: Lagrange, Hermite, and errors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SXNNMUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01574}
}
abstract

We present a novel approach to Riemannian interpolation on the Grassmann manifold. Instead of relying on the Riemannian normal coordinates, i.e. the Riemannian exponential and logarithm maps, we approach the interpolation problem with an alternative set of local coordinates and corresponding parameterizations. A special property of these coordinates is that their calculation does not require any matrix decompositions. This is a numerical advantage over Riemann normal coordinates and many other retractions on the Grassmann manifold, especially when derivative data are to be treated. To estimate the interpolation error, we examine the conditioning of these mappings and state explicit bounds. It turns out that the parameterizations are well-conditioned, but the coordinate mappings are generally not. As a remedy, we introduce maximum-volume coordinates that are based on a search for subblocks of column-orthogonal matrices of large absolute determinant. We show that the order of magnitude of the asymptotic interpolation error on $\Gr(n,p)$ is the same as in the Euclidean space. Two numerical experiments are conducted. The first is an academic one, where we interpolate a parametric orthogonal projector $QQ^T$, where the $Q$--factor stems from a parametric compact QR--decomposition. The second experiment is in the context of parametric model reduction of dynamical systems, where we interpolate reduced subspaces that are obtained by proper orthogonal decomposition.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. An new polar factor retraction on the Stiefel manifold with closed-form inverse

    math.NA 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The polar-light retraction maps tangent vectors to the Stiefel manifold via U expm(U^T ξ) + (I-UU^T)ξ normalized, giving a second-order retraction with an explicit inverse via SVD and matrix logarithm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Acta Applicandae Mathemat- ica 80(2), 199–220 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ACAP.0000013855.14971

    Absil, P.-A., Mahony, R., Sepulchre, R.: Riemannian geometry of Grassmann manifolds with a view on algorithmic computation. Acta Applicandae Mathemat- ica 80(2), 199–220 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ACAP.0000013855.14971. 91

    work page arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Absil, P.-A., Mahony, R., Sepulchre, R.: Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds, p. 224. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2008) 29

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 20(2), 303–353 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479895290954

    Edelman, A., Arias, T.A., Smith, S.T.: The geometry of algorithms with orthog- onality constraints. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 20(2), 303–353 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479895290954

    doi:10.1137/s0895479895290954 1998

  4. [4]

    A Sequence of Weighted Birman-Hardy-Rellich Inequalities with Logarithmic Refinements

    Gallivan, K.A., Srivastava, A., Liu, X., Van Dooren, P.: Efficient algorithms for inferences on Grassmann manifolds. In: IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing, pp. 315–318 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/SSP.2003.1289408

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Image and Vision Computing 30(6–7), 380–388 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2011.08

    Man Lui, Y.: Advances in matrix manifolds for computer vision. Image and Vision Computing 30(6–7), 380–388 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2011.08. 002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2011.08 2012

  6. [6]

    SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering

    Sato, H.: Riemannian Optimization and Its Applications. SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering. Springer, ??? (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2023)

    Boumal, N.: An Introduction to Optimization on Smooth Manifolds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Minh, H.Q., Murino, V.: Algorithmic Advances in Riemannian Geometry and Applications: For Machine Learning, Computer Vision, Statistics, and Optimiza- tion. Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Springer, Cham (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Springer, ??? (2015)

    Srivastava, A., Turaga, P.K.: Riemannian Computing in Computer Vision. Springer, ??? (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22957-7

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Pennec, X., Sommer, S.H., Fletcher, T.: Riemannian Geometric Statistics in Medical Image Analysis, 1. edn. Academic Press, United States (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-01561-6

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    SIAM Review 57(4), 483–531 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1137/130932715

    Benner, P., Gugercin, S., Willcox, K.: A survey of projection-based model reduc- tion methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM Review 57(4), 483–531 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1137/130932715

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Mathematics of Computation (89), 699–716 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1090/MCOM/3470

    Celledoni, E., Eidnes, S., Owren, B., Ringholm, T.: Energy preserving methods on Riemannian manifolds. Mathematics of Computation (89), 699–716 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1090/MCOM/3470

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol

    Hairer, E., Lubich, C., Wanner, G.: Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure- preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations., 2nd edn. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 31, p. 644. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    Acta Numerica 9, 215–365 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492900002154

    Iserles, A., Munthe-Kaas, H.Z., Nørsett, S.P., Zanna, A.: Lie-group methods. Acta Numerica 9, 215–365 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492900002154

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    AIAA Journal 46(7), 1803–1813 (2008) 30 https://doi.org/10.2514/1.35374

    Amsallem, D., Farhat, C.: Interpolation method for adapting reduced-order mod- els and application to aeroelasticity. AIAA Journal 46(7), 1803–1813 (2008) 30 https://doi.org/10.2514/1.35374

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 36(3), 508–537 (2014)

    Zimmermann, R.: A locally parametrized reduced order model for the linear fre- quency domain approach to time-accurate computational fluid dynamics. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 36(3), 508–537 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Oberwolfach Preprints (OWP-2024-02) (2024) https: //doi.org/10.14760/OWP-2024-02-v2

    Ciaramella, G., Gander, M.J., Vanzan, T.: A Gentle Introduction to Interpolation on the Grassmann Manifold. Oberwolfach Preprints (OWP-2024-02) (2024) https: //doi.org/10.14760/OWP-2024-02-v2

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Advances in Computational Mathe- matics 49 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10016-4

    Hess, M., Quaini, A., Rozza, G.: A data-driven surrogate modeling approach for time-dependent incompressible navier-stokes equations with dynamic mode decomposition and manifold interpolation. Advances in Computational Mathe- matics 49 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10016-4

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    In: Benner, P., Grivet-Talocia, S., Quarteroni, A., Rozza, G., Schilders, W., Silveira, L.M

    Zimmermann, R.: Manifold interpolation. In: Benner, P., Grivet-Talocia, S., Quarteroni, A., Rozza, G., Schilders, W., Silveira, L.M. (eds.) Volume 1 System- and Data-Driven Methods and Algorithms, pp. 229–274. De Gruyter, ??? (2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110498967-007

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Journal of Computational Physics 521, 113564 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024

    El Omari, A., El Khlifi, M., Cordier, L.: Stiefel manifold interpolation for non-intrusive model reduction of parameterized fluid flow problems. Journal of Computational Physics 521, 113564 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024. 113564

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 36(4), 3320 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.3320

    Pfaller, M.R., Cruz Varona, M., Lang, J., Bertoglio, C., Wall, W.A.: Using parametric model order reduction for inverse analysis of large nonlinear car- diac simulations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 36(4), 3320 (2020) https://doi.org/1...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Communications & Control Engineering

    Helmke, U., Moore, J.B.: Optimization and Dynamical Systems. Communications & Control Engineering. Springer, London (1994)

    1994

  15. [23]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 42(5), 2593–2619 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1282878

    Zimmermann, R.: Hermite interpolation and data processing errors on Rieman- nian matrix manifolds. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 42(5), 2593–2619 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1282878

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 194, 177–191 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2005.07.003

    Jakubiak, J., Leite, F.S., Rodrigues, R.: A two-step algorithm of smooth spline generation on Riemannian manifolds. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 194, 177–191 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2005.07.003

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    BIT Numerical Mathematics 64(4), 42 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10543-024-01023-y

    S´ eguin, A., Kressner, D.: Hermite interpolation with retractions on mani- folds. BIT Numerical Mathematics 64(4), 42 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10543-024-01023-y

    2024

  18. [26]

    Frontiers in Applied 31 Mathematics and Statistics (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2018.00059

    Bergmann, R., Gousenbourger, P.-Y.: A variational model for data fitting on manifolds by minimizing the acceleration of a B´ ezier curve. Frontiers in Applied 31 Mathematics and Statistics (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2018.00059

    2018

  19. [27]

    Journal of Math- ematical Imaging and Vision online, 1–27 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10851-018-0865-2

    Gousenbourger, P.-Y., Massart, E., Absil, P.-A.: Data fitting on manifolds with composite B´ ezier-like curves and blended cubic splines. Journal of Math- ematical Imaging and Vision online, 1–27 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10851-018-0865-2

    2018

  20. [28]

    Computer Aided Geometric Design 30(7), 722–732 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cagd

    Nava-Yazdani, E., Polthier, K.: De Casteljau’s algorithm on manifolds. Computer Aided Geometric Design 30(7), 722–732 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cagd. 2013.06.002

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Journal of Approximation Theory 148(2), 111–127 (2007)

    Popiel, T., Noakes, L.: B´ ezier curves and C2 interpolation in Riemannian manifolds. Journal of Approximation Theory 148(2), 111–127 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Applied Mathematics and Computation 348, 371–384 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2018.11.060

    Samir, C., Adouani, I.: C1 interpolating B´ ezier path on Riemannian manifolds, with applications to 3D shape space. Applied Mathematics and Computation 348, 371–384 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2018.11.060

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 311, 54–67 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2016.07.008

    Dyn, N., Sharon, N.: Manifold-valued subdivision schemes based on geodesic inductive averaging. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 311, 54–67 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2016.07.008

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Computer Aided Geometric Design22(7), 593–622 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cagd.2005.06.003

    Wallner, J., Dyn, N.: Convergence and C1 analysis of subdivision schemes on manifolds by proximity. Computer Aided Geometric Design22(7), 593–622 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cagd.2005.06.003

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    Advances in Computational Mathematics 49(3), 38 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10037-z

    Hofit, B.-Z.V., Nira, D., Nir, S.: Geometric hermite interpolation in Rn by refinements. Advances in Computational Mathematics 49(3), 38 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10037-z

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Solid and Physical Modeling

    Attali, D., Edelsbrunner, H., Mileyko, Y.: Weak witnesses for Delaunay triangula- tions of submanifolds. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Solid and Physical Modeling. SPM ’07, pp. 143–150. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2007). https://doi.o...

    2007

  27. [35]

    https://arxiv.org/ abs/2408.07072

    Mataigne, S., Absil, P.-A., Miolane, N.: Bounds on the geodesic distances on the Stiefel manifold for a family of Riemannian metrics (2024). https://arxiv.org/ abs/2408.07072

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Jacobsson, S., Vandebril, R., Veken, J., Vannieuwenhoven, N.: Approximating maps into manifolds with lower curvature bounds (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Texts in Applied Mathematics

    Gallier, J.: Geometric Methods and Applications: For Computer Science and Engineering. Texts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, ??? (2011). https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0137-0 32

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Advances in Computational Mathematics 50(1), 6 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10090-8

    Bendokat, T., Zimmermann, R., Absil, P.-A.: A Grassmann manifold hand- book: Basic geometry and computational aspects. Advances in Computational Mathematics 50(1), 6 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10090-8

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Algortihms and Architectures for Advanced Scientific Computing

    Saad, Y.: Numerical Methods for Large Eigenvalue Problems. Algortihms and Architectures for Advanced Scientific Computing. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    Lee, J.M.: Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, ??? (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America57, 589–594 (1967)

    Wong, Y.-C.: Differential geometry of Grassmann manifolds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America57, 589–594 (1967)

    1967

  34. [42]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 60(1), 75–79 (1968)

    Wong, Y.-C.: Sectional curvatures of Grassmann manifolds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 60(1), 75–79 (1968)

    1968

  35. [43]

    Student Mathematical Library

    K¨ uhnel, W.: Differential Geometry: Curves – Surfaces – Manifolds, 3rd edn. Student Mathematical Library. American Mathematical Society, ??? (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    PhD thesis, Stanford University (2010)

    Amsallem, D.: Interpolation on manifolds of CFD-based fluid and finite element- based structural reduced-order models for on-line aeroelastic prediction. PhD thesis, Stanford University (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics, vol

    Klingenberg, W.: A Course in Differential Geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics, vol. 51. Springer, New York (1978)

    1978

  38. [46]

    Springer, ??? (2007)

    Quarteroni, A., Sacco, R., Saleri, F.: Numerical Mathematics. Springer, ??? (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Linear Algebra and its Applications 261(1), 1–21 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3795(96)00301-1

    Goreinov, S.A., Tyrtyshnikov, E.E., Zamarashkin, N.L.: A theory of pseudoskele- ton approximations. Linear Algebra and its Applications 261(1), 1–21 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3795(96)00301-1

    1997 doi

  40. [48]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 32(5), 2737–2764 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1137/090766498

    Chaturantabut, S., Sorensen, D.C.: Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empiri- cal interpolation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 32(5), 2737–2764 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1137/090766498

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38(2), 631–648 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1137/ 15M1019271

    Drmaˇ c, Z., Gugercin, S.: A new selection operator for the discrete empirical interpolation method—improved a priori error bound and extensions. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38(2), 631–648 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1137/ 15M1019271

    2016

  42. [50]

    SIAM Jour- nal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 15(2), 592–622 (1994) https://doi.org/ 10.1137/S0895479891223781 33

    Chandrasekaran, S., Ipsen, I.C.F.: On rank-revealing factorisations. SIAM Jour- nal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 15(2), 592–622 (1994) https://doi.org/ 10.1137/S0895479891223781 33

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 17(4), 848–869 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1137/0917055

    Gu, M., Eisenstat, S.C.: Efficient algorithms for computing a strong rank- revealing qr factorization. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 17(4), 848–869 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1137/0917055

    1996 doi

  44. [52]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04330

    Damle, A., Glas, S., Townsend, A., Yu, A.: How to reveal the rank of a matrix? (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04330

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    In: Matrix Methods: Theory, Algo- rithms And Applications: Dedicated to the Memory of Gene Golub, pp

    Goreinov, S.A., Oseledets, I.V., Savostyanov, D.V., Tyrtyshnikov, E.E., Zama- rashkin, N.L.: How to find a good submatrix. In: Matrix Methods: Theory, Algo- rithms And Applications: Dedicated to the Memory of Gene Golub, pp. 247–256. World Scientific, ??? (2010). https://doi.o...

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    Higham, N.J.: Functions of Matrices: Theory and Computation, p. 425. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 46(1), 748–779 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1137/24M1655755 https://doi.org/10.1137/24M1655755

    Zimmermann, R., Stoye, J.: High Curvature Means Low Rank: On the Sectional Curvature of Grassmann and Stiefel Manifolds and the Underlying Matrix Trace Inequalities. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 46(1), 748–779 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1137/24M1655755 https...

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    Mathematics Magazine 52(3), 157–158 (1979) https://doi.org/10

    Hall, W.S., Newell, M.L.: The mean value theorem for vector valued functions: A simple proof. Mathematics Magazine 52(3), 157–158 (1979) https://doi.org/10. 2307/2690276

    1979

  49. [57]

    Optimization Methods and Software 27(2), 391–403 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1080/10556788.2011.610454

    Walter, S.F., Lehmann, L., and, R.L.: On evaluating higher-order derivatives of the QR decomposition of tall matrices with full column rank in forward and reverse mode algorithmic differentiation. Optimization Methods and Software 27(2), 391–403 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1080/...

    2012

  50. [58]

    Mallot, H.: Computational Neuroscience

    A. Mallot, H.: Computational Neuroscience. Springer, ??? (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Physics Reports 1096, 1–39 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physrep.2024.09.014

    Cebri´ an-Lacasa, D., Parra-Rivas, P., Ruiz-Reyn´ es, D., Gelens, L.: Six decades of the Fitzhugh–Nagumo model: A guide through its spatio-temporal dynamics and influence across disciplines. Physics Reports 1096, 1–39 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physrep.2024.09.014

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    PhD thesis, Rice Unversity (2011)

    Chaturantabut, S.: Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpola- tion. PhD thesis, Rice Unversity (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Mathematics: Theory & Applications

    Carmo, M.P.: Riemannian Geometry. Mathematics: Theory & Applications. Birkh¨ auser Boston, ??? (1992)

    1992

  54. [62]

    Springer, New York – Berlin – Heidelberg (1997) 34

    Lee, J.M.: Riemannian Manifolds: an Introduction to Curvature. Springer, New York – Berlin – Heidelberg (1997) 34

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.