Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Spectral estimates for saddle point matrices arising in weak constraint four-dimensional variational data assimilation

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the spectra of the 3x3 and reduced saddle point systems of weak constraint 4D-Var move in predictable directions as observations are added, with explicit eigenvalue bounds.

desk verdict A solid, carefully scoped spectral analysis of weak constraint 4D-Var saddle point systems; the observation-count monotonicity theorems survive scrutiny, and the diagonal-R restriction is explicit, not hidden. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07949 v2 pith:2A7EKGD4 submitted 2019-08-21 math.NA cs.NAmath.DS

Ieva Daužickaitė , Amos S. Lawless , Jennifer A. Scott , Peter Jan van Leeuwen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.DS MSC 65F1065F1515A1865F50
keywords dataassimilationsaddlepointsystemsspectralestimatesweakconstraint4D-Varsparselineareigenvalueboundsobservationnetworksiterativesolvers
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

Weak constraint four-dimensional variational data assimilation (4D-Var) computes an analysis by solving symmetric linear systems that can be written as a 3x3 block saddle point matrix, A3, a 2x2 block saddle point reduction, A2, or a 1x1 symmetric positive definite system, A1. The paper's central claim is that the spectra of all three matrices respond predictably to the number of observations of the dynamical system. For A3, negative eigenvalues and the largest positive eigenvalue move away from zero (or stay put) as observations are added, while the smallest positive eigenvalue moves toward zero; for A2 and A1, the same monotonicity is proved under the assumption that observation errors are uncorrelated, i.e. that the covariance matrix R is diagonal. The paper also derives explicit intervals that contain the eigenvalues of A3, A2, and A1, and confirms the intervals and monotonicity numerically. A sympathetic reader should care because these spectral shifts control how fast iterative solvers converge and what a preconditioner must repair.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two mechanisms. Adding an observation appends one row and one column to A3, so the interlacing theorem for principal submatrices directly forces the extreme-eigenvalue shifts of Theorem 3 without any structural assumptions on the blocks. For A2 and A1 the entry point is block algebra: when R is diagonal, adding an observation splits H^T $R^{{-1}}$H into the old term plus a rank-one term $alpha^{{-1}}$ h h^T, and the eigenvalue perturbation inequalities then imply the monotonicity in Theorems 5 and 7. The eigenvalue bounds in Theorems 4, 6, and 8 are obtained from energy arguments applied to the eigenvector equations: for a positive eigenvalue zeta of A2 one solves inequalities built from the extreme eigenvalues psi_min, psi_max of D, nu_min, nu_max of H^T $R^{{-1}}$H, and the smallest and largest singular values sigma_min, sigma_max of L and theta_min, theta_max of (L^T H^T); the 3x3 interval follows from the standard saddle point bound applied to the block diagonal C = diag(D,R) and off-diagonal block (L^T H^T), and the 1x1 interval comes from compressing the generalised Rayleigh quotient of A1.

What would settle it

Check containment for small allowed instances: generate random diagonal-R weak-constraint systems with two or three time steps, compute all eigenvalues of A3, A2, and A1, and verify they lie in the intervals of Theorems 4, 6, and 8; a single eigenvalue outside would refute a bound. Separately, to test the boundary of the diagonal-R assumption, set R with a positive off-diagonal correlation between two observation errors, add one observation, and track the extreme eigenvalues of A2 and A1; if a positive eigenvalue of A2 moves away from zero or an eigenvalue of A1 moves toward zero, the monotonicity results do not survive correlated errors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the spectra of A3, A2, and A1 are sensitive to the number of observations, and quantifies that sensitivity. Theorem 3 states that for A3 the smallest and largest negative eigenvalues and the largest positive eigenvalue move away from zero or are unchanged when observations are added, while the smallest positive eigenvalue approaches zero or is unchanged. Theorem 5 states that, provided R is diagonal, the extreme negative eigenvalues of A2 move away from zero and the extreme positive eigenvalues approach zero; Theorem 7 states that under the same diagonal-R condition the eigenvalues of A1 move away from zero. Theorems 4, 6, and 8 supply containment intervals for the spectra using only extreme eigenvalues of the covariance blocks and singular values of the stacked operator (L^T H^T). The numerical experiments with different observation networks reproduce the predicted directions of motion and show that the saddle point intervals are tight, while the upper bound for A1 is pessimistic.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that observation errors are uncorrelated, so R is diagonal and adding an observation adds a rank-one term to H^T $R^{{-1}}$H; without that, the stated eigenvalue shifts for A2 and A1 are unproved and may fail, while the 3x3 results stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The numerical experiments show the outer bounds on A3 are tight, so the intervals in Theorem 4 can serve as a priori spectral estimates for a given observation network before forming the full matrix.
  • As observations are added, the negative eigenvalues of A3 and A2 cluster away from zero, which helps MINRES, while the positive eigenvalues of A2 and the smallest positive eigenvalue of A3 move toward zero, which can stall it; effective preconditioning must target the small positive part.
  • For diagonal R, the eigenvalues of A1 all move away from zero as the observation count grows, so CG on the 1x1 formulation is expected to converge faster for denser observation networks.
  • In the fully observed numerical case the largest positive eigenvalue of A2 drops from about 2.1 to about 0.05, a change large enough to alter practical stopping criteria and condition number estimates.
  • Only the A3 monotonicity holds for general R; any transfer of the A2/A1 conclusions to an operational setting with correlated observation errors would need new analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proof mechanism for A2 and A1 is a rank-one update, the same analysis transfers to any saddle point system whose (2,2) block is a weighted observation Gram matrix; the 4D-Var application is the test case, not the boundary of the result.
  • A direct testable extension is to allow R to be diagonal plus a low-rank correlation matrix; the perturbation would no longer be rank-one, but the partial order of the bounds may still imply monotonicity for the extreme eigenvalues under mild conditions.
  • The spectral intervals suggest a pragmatic preconditioning route: estimate theta_min, theta_max, psi_max, and rho_max cheaply, then choose a shift or deflation for the small positive eigenvalues of A2 without ever forming H^T R^{-1}H explicitly.
  • Operational weather-prediction systems frequently use thinned or superobbed observations whose errors are correlated; the paper's diagonal-R restriction means the A2/A1 guarantees should not be assumed there until tested, and A3 is the safer formulation when correlations are present.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spectra of three symmetric linear systems that arise in incremental weak-constraint 4D-Var data assimilation: the 3x3 saddle point matrix A3, the reduced 2x2 saddle point matrix A2, and the 1x1 symmetric positive definite matrix A1. Its main results are monotonicity statements for extreme eigenvalues when observations are added (Theorem 3 for A3 via Cauchy interlacing; Theorems 5 and 7 for A2 and A1 in the case of diagonal observation error covariance R via rank-one updates), interval bounds for the spectra of all three matrices (Theorems 4, 6, and 8), and comparisons with alternative bounds of Axelsson and Neytcheva. Numerical experiments with the Lorenz 96 model confirm the monotonicity and illustrate the sharpness of the bounds, and the paper also discusses implications for MINRES and CG convergence.

Significance. If the main results are correct, they provide practically useful information for the design and preconditioning of iterative solvers in weak-constraint 4D-Var, where the number of observations changes between assimilation cycles. The 2x2 formulation and its spectral bounds appear to be new, and the proofs are transparent, using standard tools such as Cauchy interlacing, Weyl inequalities, Sylvester's law of inertia, and energy arguments. A notable strength is that the bounds are expressed entirely in terms of eigenvalues and singular values of the problem blocks and contain no fitted parameters. The paper is also honest about the scope of the monotonicity results: the A2 and A1 results explicitly require diagonal R, and the numerical convergence for the single-observation network is acknowledged as not explained by the spectrum. However, the appendix contains indexing errors in the individual eigenvalue bounds that need to be corrected before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem 14 and Corollary 9] There is a systematic index error in the statement of Theorem 14 and in the subsequent Corollary 9. With eigenvalues sorted as zeta_1 <= ... <= zeta_{2n}, the n positive eigenvalues of A2 are zeta_{n+1}, ..., zeta_{2n}, whereas Theorem 14 claims that the D-block eigenvalues psi_k bound zeta_k for k = 1, ..., n, and that the negative eigenvalues are bounded by -nu_k +/- sigma_max for zeta_{k+n}. As stated, the theorem is false. For example, take n = 1, D = [1], L = [1], and H^T R^{-1} H = [100]; the eigenvalues of A2 are approximately -100.01 and 1.01, but the 'negative eigenvalue' bound in Theorem 14 gives zeta_2 in [-101, -99], which excludes the actual positive eigenvalue 1.01. Corollary 9 inherits the same misindexing and is false in the fully observed case. The numerical discussion in Section 4.2 uses Corollary 9 to place p eigenvalues of A2 in [-110, -90]; the observed statement about the spectrum is correct, but the supporting indexing in the corollary needs to be corrected so that the bounds apply to the correct sorted positions of the eigenvalues.
  2. [Appendix A, Theorem 13] Theorem 13 has the same reindexing problem as Theorem 14. For the 3x3 matrix A3, the sorted eigenvalues are gamma_1 <= ... <= gamma_n < 0 < gamma_{n+1} <= ... <= gamma_{2n+p}, so the negative eigenvalues are the first n entries and the positive eigenvalues are the last n+p entries. The theorem instead labels the bounds involving the D- and R-eigenvalues as being for gamma_k, k = 1, ..., n+p, and puts the 'negative eigenvalue' bounds on gamma_{k+n+p}, k = 1, ..., n. Already in the no-observation case p = 0, n = 1, the matrix A3 = [[d, l], [l, 0]] has one negative and one positive eigenvalue, while the stated 'positive' bound is applied to the negative eigenvalue and the stated 'negative' bound to the positive eigenvalue. The proof by Weyl's theorem gives valid intervals for every sorted index, but the identification of which indices correspond to positive and negative eigenvalues is shifted by n in the statement. This affects Corollary 9 and also the interpretation in Section 4.2, so the authors should restate Theorems 13 and 14 with the correct sorted indices.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Corollary 3] The statement of Corollary 3 contains a typo: it reads sqrt(psi_max^2 + theta_min^2) in the condition, but the proof and the preceding inequality use sqrt(psi_max^2 + 4 theta_min^2). The factor 4 should be restored in the corollary statement.
  2. [Title] The title in the manuscript text contains a typo: 'wea k constraint' should read 'weak constraint'.
  3. [Section 4.2] The statement that nu_max does not change across observation networks is correct for the described setup only because observations at different time instants occupy different diagonal blocks of H^T R^{-1} H; it would help the reader if this structural reason were stated explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all spectral bounds and sensitivity results are proved from external interlacing/Weyl theorems with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are Theorem 3 (monotonicity of extreme eigenvalues of A3 under added observations), Theorems 5 and 7 (same for A2 and A1 under diagonal R), and the interval bounds Theorems 4, 6, and 8. Theorem 3 is proved directly by Cauchy's interlace theorem applied to A3,k as a principal submatrix of A3,k+1; no quantity is defined in terms of the claimed conclusion. Theorems 5 and 7 reduce, for diagonal R, to the rank-one update H_{k+1}^T R_{k+1}^{-1} H_{k+1} = H_k^T R_k^{-1} H_k + alpha^{-1} h_{k+1} h_{k+1}^T, and then apply Weyl's eigenvalue perturbation theorem; the diagonal-R restriction is explicitly stated in each theorem and in the conclusions, so it is a scoped limitation, not a hidden assumption. The interval bounds are applications of external results (Rusten-Winther Lemma 2.1, Silvester-Wathen energy arguments, Jordan-Wielandt plus Weyl) to the block structure; every bound is expressed in terms of eigenvalues/singular values of the problem blocks D, R, L, H, which are inputs, not outputs. There are no fitted parameters, no 'predictions' that are statistically forced by a subset of the data, and no load-bearing self-citations: the papers by the authors (e.g., Gratton-Lawless-Nichols [17]) appear only as background on Gauss-Newton methods and are not used to justify the spectral claims. The honest admission that MINRES convergence for one observation network is not explained by spectra (Section 4.3) is a limitation of a convergence comment, not a circular step. The minor typo in Corollary 3's statement (theta_min^2 versus 4 theta_min^2 in the displayed square root) does not affect any derivation, since the proof correctly uses 4 theta_min^2. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no fitted constants and introduces no invented entities. Its theoretical results rely only on standard matrix theorems and on the stated data assimilation assumptions, the most restrictive being the diagonal-R hypothesis used for the A2 and A1 monotonicity results. The numerical parameter choices are illustrative inputs, not free parameters used to force the bounds.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Weyl eigenvalue inequalities for Hermitian matrices.
    Used in Lemmas 1 and 3, Theorem 13, and Theorem 14 to compare spectra after rank-one or nullspace updates.
  • standard math Cauchy interlacing theorem for principal submatrices.
    Used in Lemma 2 and Theorem 3 to relate A3,k to A3,k+1 when observations are appended.
  • standard math Sylvester's law of inertia.
    Used in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 to count positive and negative eigenvalues of A3 and A2 via congruence transformations.
  • standard math Rusten-Winther Lemma 2.1 eigenvalue intervals for saddle point matrices.
    Quoted and applied directly in Theorem 4 to bound the eigenvalues of A3.
  • standard math Silvester-Wathen energy inequalities for block SPD matrices and singular values.
    Used in Theorem 6 to derive the A2 bounds from Rayleigh quotient arguments.
  • standard math Jordan-Wielandt theorem on eigenvalues of off-diagonal block matrices.
    Used in Theorems 13 and 14 to bound eigenvalues of A3 and A2 through their block diagonal plus off-diagonal parts.
  • domain assumption The covariance matrices D and R are symmetric positive definite and the model errors are uncorrelated in time.
    Standard weak constraint 4D-Var assumptions from Section 2; they make the cost function and the saddle point formulations well posed.
  • domain assumption For Theorems 5 and 7, R is diagonal, meaning observation errors are uncorrelated.
    Explicit hypothesis of those theorems; without it, the rank-one update structure of H^T R^{-1} H is lost.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral estimates for saddle point matrices arising in weak constraint four-dimensional variational data assimilation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2A7EKGD4

@misc{pith2026190807949,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral estimates for saddle point matrices arising in weak constraint four-dimensional variational data assimilation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2A7EKGD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07949}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the large-sparse symmetric linear systems of equations that arise in the solution of weak constraint four-dimensional variational data assimilation, a method of high interest for numerical weather prediction. These systems can be written as saddle point systems with a 3x3 block structure but block eliminations can be performed to reduce them to saddle point systems with a 2x2 block structure, or further to symmetric positive definite systems. In this paper, we analyse how sensitive the spectra of these matrices are to the number of observations of the underlying dynamical system. We also obtain bounds on the eigenvalues of the matrices. Numerical experiments are used to confirm the theoretical analysis and bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07949 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Semi-logarithmic plots of the positive and negative eigenvalu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Semi-logarithmic plots of the relative residual of MINRES wh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Assimilation of operational data

    Andersson, E., and Th ´ epaut, J.-N. Assimilation of operational data. In Data Assimilation. Making Sense of Observations , W. Lahoz, B. Khattatov, and R. Menard, Eds. Springer-Verlag B erlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 283 – 299

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Eigenvalue estimates for preconditioned saddle point matrices

    Axelsson, O., and Neytcheva, M. Eigenvalue estimates for preconditioned saddle point matrices. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications 13 , 4 (2006), 339 – 360

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    H., and Liesen, J

    Benzi, M., Golub, G. H., and Liesen, J. Numerical solution of saddle point problems. Acta Numerica 14 (2005), 1 – 137

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Inexact constraint preconditioners for linear systems arising in interior point methods

    Bergamaschi, L., Gondzio, J., Venturin, M., and Zilli, G. Inexact constraint preconditioners for linear systems arising in interior point methods. Computational Optimization and Applications 36 , 2 (2007), 137 – 147

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Bonavita, M., Tr ´ emolet, Y., H ´olm, E., Lang, S. T. K., Chrust, M., Janiskova, M., Lopez, P., Laloyaux, P., de Rosnay, P., Fisher, M., Hamrud, M., and Engl ish, S. A strategy for data assimilation. ECMWF Technical Memoranda, 800 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Butcher, J. C. The Numerical Analysis of Ordinary Differential Equations: Runge-Kutta and General Linear Methods. Wiley-Interscience, 1987

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    J., and Zhang, Y

    Chen, H., Yang, D., Hong, Y., Gourley, J. J., and Zhang, Y. Hydrological data assimilation with the Ensemble Square-Root-Filter: Use of streamflow observations to update model states for real-time flash flood forecasting. Advances in Water Resources 59 (2013), 209 – 220

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    A strategy for operational implementation of 4D- Var, using an incremental approach

    Courtier, P., Th ´ epaut, J.-N., and Hollingsworth, A. A strategy for operational implementation of 4D- Var, using an incremental approach. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 120 , 519 (1994), 1367 – 1387

    work page 1994

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Atmospheric Data Analysis , vol

    Daley, R. Atmospheric Data Analysis , vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, 1993. 19

    1993

  2. [10]

    Conditioning of the weak-constraint variational data assi milation problem for numerical weather prediction

    El-Said, A. Conditioning of the weak-constraint variational data assi milation problem for numerical weather prediction. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Universit y of Reading, 2015. PhD thesis

    2015

  3. [11]

    Variational data assimilation for tropospheric chemistry modeling

    Elbern, H., Schmidt, H., and Ebel, A. Variational data assimilation for tropospheric chemistry modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 102 , D13 (1997), 15967 – 15985

    1997

  4. [12]

    Minimization algorithms for variational data assimilation

    Fisher, M. Minimization algorithms for variational data assimilation. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Recent Developments in Numerical Methods for Atmospheric Modelli ng (1998), European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, pp. 364 – 385

    1998

  5. [13]

    Parallelisation in the time dimension of four-dimensional variational da ta assimi- lation

    Fisher, M., and G ¨urol, S. Parallelisation in the time dimension of four-dimensional variational da ta assimi- lation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 143 , 703 (2017), 1136 – 1147

    2017

  6. [14]

    A., and Green, D

    Freitag, M. A., and Green, D. L. A low-rank approach to the solution of weak constraint variational data assimilation problems. Journal of Computational Physics 357 (2018), 263 – 281

    2018

  7. [15]

    H., and V an Loan, C

    Golub, G. H., and V an Loan, C. F. Matrix Computations , 4th ed. JHU Press, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Gratton, S., G ¨urol, S., Simon, E., and Toint, P. L. Guaranteeing the convergence of the saddle formulation for weakly-constrained 4D-Var data assimilation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 144 , 717 (2018), 2592 – 2602

    2018

  9. [17]

    Approximate gauss-newton methods for nonlinear least squares problems

    Gratton, S., Lawless, A., and Nichols, N. Approximate gauss-newton methods for nonlinear least squares problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization 18 , 1 (2007), 106 – 132

    2007

  10. [18]

    Any nonincreasing convergence curve is possible for GMRES

    Greenbaum, A., Pt ´ak, V., and Strako ˇs, Z. Any nonincreasing convergence curve is possible for GMRES. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 17 , 3 (1996), 465 – 469

    1996

  11. [19]

    Bounds on eigenvalues of matrices arising from interior-point methods

    Greif, C., Moulding, E., and Orban, D. Bounds on eigenvalues of matrices arising from interior-point methods. SIAM Journal on Optimization 24 , 1 (2014), 49 – 83

    2014

  12. [20]

    Adjoint methods in data assimilation for estimating model error

    Griffith, A., and Nichols, N. Adjoint methods in data assimilation for estimating model error. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 65 , 3 - 4 (2000), 469 – 488

    2000

  13. [21]

    R., and Stiefel, E

    Hestenes, M. R., and Stiefel, E. Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 49 , 6 (1952), 409 – 436

    1952

  14. [22]

    A., Cohn, S

    Janji´c, T., Bormann, N., Bocquet, M., Carton, J. A., Cohn, S. E., Da nce, S. L., Losa, S. N., Nichols, N. K., Potthast, R., W aller, J. A., and Weston, P. On the representation error in data assimilation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 144 , 713 (2018),...

    2018

  15. [23]

    J., and Nichols, N

    Johnson, C., Hoskins, B. J., and Nichols, N. K. A singular vector perspective of 4D-Var: Filtering and interpolation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 131 , 605 (2005), 1 – 19

    2005

  16. [24]

    Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictabili ty

    Kalnay, E. Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictabili ty. Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    Variational data assimilation for very large environmental problems

    Lawless, A. Variational data assimilation for very large environmental problems . In Large Scale Inverse Prob- lems: Computational Methods and Applications in the Earth S ciences, M. Cullen, M. A. Freitag, S. Kindermann, and R. Scheichl, Eds., Radon Series on Computational and...

    2013

  18. [26]

    Predictability - a problem partly solved

    Lorenz, E. Predictability - a problem partly solved. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Predictability (1996), vol. 1, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, pp . 1 – 18

    1996

  19. [27]

    Spectral estimates for unreduced symmetric KKT systems arising from interior point methods

    Morini, B., Simoncini, V., and Tani, M. Spectral estimates for unreduced symmetric KKT systems arising from interior point methods. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications 23 , 5 (2016), 776 – 800

    2016

  20. [28]

    A comparison of reduced and unreduced KKT systems arising from interior point methods

    Morini, B., Simoncini, V., and Tani, M. A comparison of reduced and unreduced KKT systems arising from interior point methods. Computational Optimization and Applications 68 , 1 (2017), 1 – 27

    2017

  21. [29]

    J., and Diekman, C

    Moye, M. J., and Diekman, C. O. Data assimilation methods for neuronal state and parameter estim ation. The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience 8 , 11 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Nichols, N. K. Mathematical concepts of data assimilation. In Data Assimilation. Making Sense of Observations , W. Lahoz, B. Khattatov, and R. Menard, Eds. Springer-Verlag Be rlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 13 – 39

    2010

  23. [31]

    Nocedal, J., and Wright, S. J. Numerical Optimization , 2nd ed. World Scientific, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    C., and Saunders, M

    Paige, C. C., and Saunders, M. A. Solution of sparse indefinite systems of linear equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 12 , 4 (1975), 617 – 629. 20

    1975

  25. [33]

    The role of the model in the data assimilation system

    Rood, R. The role of the model in the data assimilation system. In Data Assimilation. Making Sense of Observations, W. Lahoz, B. Khattatov, and R. Menard, Eds. Springer-Verlag B erlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 351 – 379

    2010

  26. [34]

    A preconditioned iterative method for saddlepoint problems

    Rusten, T., and Winther, R. A preconditioned iterative method for saddlepoint problems. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 13 , 3 (1992), 887 – 904

    1992

  27. [35]

    Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems , 2nd ed

    Saad, Y. Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems , 2nd ed. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2003

    2003

  28. [36]

    Saad, Y., and Schultz, M. H. GMRES: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymme tric linear systems. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 7 , 3 (1986), 856 – 869

    1986

  29. [37]

    Fast iterative solution of stabilised Stokes systems

    Silvester, D., and W athen, A. Fast iterative solution of stabilised Stokes systems. Part II: using general block preconditioners. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 31 , 5 (1994), 1352 – 1367

    1994

  30. [38]

    Determinants of block matrices

    Silvester, J. Determinants of block matrices. Mathematical Gazette 84 , 501 (2000), 460 – 467

    2000

  31. [39]

    Simoncini, V., and Szyld, D. B. On the superlinear sonvergence of MINRES. In Numerical Mathematics and Advanced Applications 2011. Proceedings of ENUMATH 2011 (2013), A. Cangiani, R. Davidchack, E. Georgoulis, A. Gorban, J. Levesley, and M. Tretyakov, Eds., Springer, pp. 73 3 – 740

    2013

  32. [40]

    Matrix Perturbation Theory

    Stewart, G., and Sun, J.-G. Matrix Perturbation Theory . Computer Science and Scientific Computing. Academic Press, 1990

    1990

  33. [41]

    Numerical weather prediction

    Swinbank, R. Numerical weather prediction. In Data Assimilation. Making Sense of Observations , W. Lahoz, B. Khattatov, and R. Menard, Eds. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelbe rg, 2010, pp. 381 – 406

    2010

  34. [42]

    Variational assimilation

    Talagrand, O. Variational assimilation. In Data Assimilation. Making Sense of Observations , W. Lahoz, B. Khattatov, and R. Menard, Eds. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelbe rg, 2010, pp. 41 – 68

    2010

  35. [43]

    N., and Bau, III, D

    Trefethen, L. N., and Bau, III, D. Numerical Linear Algebra . SIAM, 1997

    1997

  36. [44]

    Accounting for an imperfect model in 4D-Var

    Tr´ emolet, Y. Accounting for an imperfect model in 4D-Var. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 132, 621 (2006), 2483 – 2504

    2006

  37. [45]

    Model-error estimation in 4D-Var

    Tr´ emolet, Y. Model-error estimation in 4D-Var. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 133 , 626 (2007), 1267 – 1280. 21

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.