Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Empirical sparse regression on quadratic manifolds

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quadratic manifold sparse regression reconstructs high-dimensional data vectors from a small number of samples and matches full-data accuracy on transport-dominated problems.

desk verdict Solid new method with strong numerics; a repairable proof flaw and missing conditioning analysis need fixing before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09746 v1 pith:3GVLCECA submitted 2024-12-12 math.NA cs.NAmath.DS

Paul Schwerdtner , Serkan Gugercin , Benjamin Peherstorfer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.DS MSC 65F5562H2565F3068T0965F2065M22
keywords quadraticmanifoldssparseregressionempiricalinterpolationmodelreductiondimensionalityQDEIMsamplingtransport-dominateddynamicsKolmogorovbarrier
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

Quadratic manifold sparse regression (QMSR) reconstructs a high-dimensional data vector from a small number of its measured components, without assuming the data lie near a linear subspace. The method trains a quadratic decoder and a sparse linear encoder together via a greedy selection of singular vectors, with the sample locations chosen by the QDEIM rule. The paper's central claim is that on transport-dominated and wave-like data, QMSR with $m = 2r$ samples matches the accuracy of reconstructing from all components, and outperforms empirical interpolation and gappy POD by orders of magnitude. It also proves that any data point lying exactly on the trained quadratic manifold is recovered exactly from the sparse samples when the sampled reduced basis has full column rank.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quadratic manifold decoder $g_{V,W}(c) = Vc + Wh(c)$ with $h(c) = [c_1 c_1, c_1 c_2, \ldots, c_r c_r]^\top$, paired with the sparse linear encoder $f_{V,P}(Ps) = (PV)^+ Ps$. The load-bearing identity is $(PV)^+ P W = 0$ for $W$ fitted by the regularized least-squares step; this identity makes the reconstruction idempotent, collapses the nonlinear projection onto the manifold to a linear least-squares problem in the norm induced by $PV$, and yields the exact-recovery corollary. Sampling locations are chosen by QDEIM on the first $m$ singular vectors, and the greedy training objective selects singular vectors specifically for this sparse encoder rather than for full-data reconstruction.

What would settle it

Compute the ratio of the weighted residual $\|(PV)^+ P (\hat{s} - s)\|_2$ to the Euclidean error $\|\hat{s} - s\|_2$ over a test set of transport-dominated data: if this ratio grows large while the manifold fit itself stays good, the optimality result no longer controls the error QMSR reports. Directly, find a dataset where $PV$ is ill-conditioned under QDEIM sampling; QMSR errors far above full-data quadratic manifold reconstruction would falsify the claim that $m = 2r$ samples generally suffice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that nonlinear manifold expressivity and sparse observations can be combined through one specific encoder-decoder pair: encode the samples $Ps$ as $f_{V,P}(Ps) = (PV)^+ Ps$, then decode as $g_{V,W}(c) = Vc + Wh(c)$, where $h$ collects the quadratic products of the reduced coordinates. If the weight matrix $W$ is fitted by the proposed sparse greedy least-squares objective, the composed map is idempotent, the reconstruction is the unique minimizer of the weighted residual $\|(PV)^+ P(\hat{s} - s)\|_2$ over the manifold, and every manifold point is recovered exactly whenever $PV$ has full column rank. The numerical experiments on Vlasov density fields, acoustic wave pulses, and rotating detonation data show relative errors close to full-data quadratic manifold reconstruction with only $m = 2r$ sparse samples, while linear empirical interpolation is orders of magnitude less accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy guarantee depends on the sampled reduced basis being well conditioned; the paper proves optimality in the norm induced by the pseudo-inverse of $PV$, not directly in the Euclidean error that the experiments report, so a poorly conditioned sample set could break the link between theory and measured accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Transport-dominated fields that defeat linear approximation can be reconstructed from a small number of sensor samples using quadratic manifolds, with errors matching full-data reconstruction.
  • The exact-recovery property means QMSR inherits the key interpolation-style guarantee of empirical interpolation: points on the learned nonlinear manifold are reproduced exactly from $m \geq r$ sparse samples when $PV$ has full column rank.
  • The sparse linear encoder is numerically sufficient in the tested examples: it performs like solving the nonlinear sparse least-squares problem with Gauss-Newton iterations, so the nonlinear projection can be avoided in practice.
  • Oversampling beyond $m = r$ avoids the instability seen in empirical interpolation at $m = r$; the paper uses $m \in \{r, 2r, 3r, 4r\}$ and reports comparable accuracy already at $m = 2r$.
  • Because the decoder is quadratic, the method remains a component-wise polynomial of the reduced coordinates, so it can be used within projection-based model reduction workflows that require a differentiable decoder.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The annihilation identity $(PV)^+ P W = 0$ suggests the same sparse encoder could be paired with other trained decoders, polynomial or neural, as long as the fitted weight matrix satisfies an analogous annihilation condition.
  • The sample placement and conditioning of $PV$, not just the manifold's fit, is the practical bottleneck; a sensor-placement criterion that minimizes the condition number of $PV$ could be a natural extension of the QDEIM choice.
  • The $m = 2r$ heuristic is established only on the three test problems; datasets with different Kolmogorov n-width decay would test whether the required oversampling factor depends on the conditioning of $PV$.
  • A head-to-head comparison against nonlinear sparse reconstruction methods based on neural networks would clarify whether the improvement over linear methods comes mainly from the quadratic manifold or from the sparse regression formulation itself.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. QMSR extends quadratic manifold approximations to the setting where only m sparse components of a high-dimensional vector are observed. Given training data, the method constructs a sampling operator P by applying QDEIM to the first m left singular vectors, greedily selects r left singular vectors V using an objective built from the sparse linear encoder f_{V,P}(Ps)=(PV)^+Ps, and then fits the quadratic decoder weight W by ridge regression. The final approximation is g_{V,W}(f_{V,P}(Ps)). The paper proves idempotence of this map, an optimality property with respect to the weighted objective ||(PV)^+P(\hat{s}-s)||_2, and exact recovery of points that lie on the quadratic manifold. Numerical experiments on three transport-dominated test sets report the relative error (17) and show that QMSR with m=2r sparse samples performs comparably to full-data quadratic manifold reconstruction and significantly better than linear DEIM.

Significance. If the claims are sustained, QMSR is a practically valuable nonlinear alternative to empirical interpolation for sparse data reconstruction, with natural applications in model reduction, sensor placement, and field reconstruction from sparse measurements. The paper has several concrete strengths: it provides reproducible code, the numerical experiments are large-scale and include a comparison against the nonlinear encoder from (8), and the exact-recovery property for points on the manifold is a clean and checkable statement. The main weaknesses are in the theoretical support: the proof of Proposition 1 is invalid as printed, and the optimality result in Proposition 2 does not connect the weighted objective to the Euclidean errors actually measured in the experiments, with no conditioning information on PV reported. These issues are repairable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's theoretical claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3, Proposition 1, Eq. (14)] The expression for W in Eq. (14) is not the minimizer of (12) and is dimensionally inconsistent: h(\tilde{s})^T is a 1×p row vector, so h(\tilde{s})^T + \gamma I is not defined, and a matrix K that depends on a single test point s cannot describe the weight matrix W that is fitted to the whole training set. The idempotence conclusion is nevertheless repairable: with A = h(f_{V,P}(PS)), the minimizer of (12) is W = (I - V(PV)^+P) S A^T (A A^T + \gamma I)^{-1}, and (PV)^+ P W = 0 follows from (PV)^+ P V = I. The printed proof should be replaced by this corrected argument.
  2. [§3.3, Proposition 2 and Eq. (16)] Proposition 2 proves optimality only with respect to the weighted norm ||(PV)^+P(\cdot)||_2. Because (PV)^+PV=I and (PV)^+PW=0, the objective in (16) reduces to ||\tilde{s} - (PV)^+Ps||_2 and is independent of the nonlinear term W h(\tilde{s}); it therefore does not measure or bound the Euclidean reconstruction error (1) or the relative error (17) reported in all figures. No condition number of PV or norm-gap estimate is provided anywhere in Section 4. The greedy bases in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 contain singular vectors with indices far beyond m (e.g., φ(140) and φ(182) in 4.1.2), while P is constructed from the first m singular vectors, so κ(PV) could be large and the sparse encoder could amplify the sampling residual. I ask the authors to report κ(PV) for each experiment or to give an explicit bound connecting the weighted objective to the Euclidean error; without this, the observed agreement with full-data reconstructions is not explained by the theory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 7] The update should read V^i = [φ(j_1), ..., φ(j_i)] rather than V^i = [φ(1), ..., φ(j_i)].
  2. [Section 4 opening and figure captions] The method acronym is misspelled as "QSMR" in the opening sentence of Section 4 and in several figure captions; it should be "QMSR".
  3. [Remark 1] The justification that (11) and (13) have the same solutions is imprecise as stated: the norm identity ||AZ||_F = ||A||_F for a matrix Z with orthonormal columns requires that the map is an isometry, which is not automatic in the claimed generality with p ≥ m. The equivalence should be argued directly through the left-multiplication by the orthonormal matrix Φ, rather than by citing the identity in that form.
  4. [Section 3.4] The sentence "we aim to select P such that the data S can be well approximated in the space spanned by the first m left-singular vectors" is vague, since P acts by sampling rows of S, not by projecting S; a more precise statement about the role of QDEIM in making the sampled rows of Φ_m well conditioned would help the reader.
  5. [Section 4.1.2] The claim that QMSR with m=2r samples achieves "comparable accuracy" to full-data reconstruction is stated without a quantitative tolerance; specifying the accuracy gap, for example in terms of the plotted error curves, would make the claim more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: QMSR's reported accuracies are genuine out-of-sample predictions and the exact-recovery result follows from the construction, not from a fitted input.

full rationale

The central claims are not circular. QMSR trains the sampling operator P, the basis V, and the weight matrix W on the training portion of each data set and reports errors (17) on held-out test vectors, so the headline accuracy results are genuine predictions rather than fitted values. The exact-recovery property (Corollary 1) is a mathematical consequence of the construction: W is chosen via (12), which implies the identity (PV)^+PW = 0, so the sparse encoder f_{V,P} is a left inverse of the decoder g_{V,W} on the quadratic manifold. This is a theorem with an explicitly stated rank condition, not an empirical claim forced by training data. Proposition 2 proves optimality with respect to the norm induced by (PV)^+P; this is a weaker statement than Euclidean optimality but it is conditional and honestly stated, not a re-labeling of an input. The greedy construction extends the authors' prior work [47] rather than importing an unverified result, and the sparse encoder and sampling construction are new contributions. The concerns raised by the reviewer—the conditioning of PV when QDEIM rows are chosen from low-order singular vectors while V contains high-order singular vectors, and the dimensional inconsistency in Eq. (14) of Proposition 1's proof—are correctness and robustness risks, not circularity. They do not make the paper's results equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quadratic ansatz, the generalization of greedy training, and the conditioning of the sampling operator, plus standard linear algebra. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The main free parameter is the ridge regularization gamma, fixed without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (2)
  • regularization parameter gamma = 1e-8 (set, not fitted)
    Appears in the least-squares problems (7), (10), and (12); set to 1e-8 in all experiments with no sensitivity study reported.
  • damping coefficients for Gauss-Newton comparison = best among {1e-8, ..., 1e8}
    In Figures 4, 8, and 11, the nonlinear encoder baseline is tuned over a wide range of damping coefficients and the lowest error is reported, a favorable choice for the baseline.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The data are well approximated by a quadratic manifold of the form {V e + W h(e)}.
    The entire method and the numerical gains depend on the expressivity of quadratic feature maps for transport-dominated data; no approximation theorem is provided.
  • domain assumption Minimizing the training objective (10) generalizes to unseen test data.
    The greedy selection and W fitting minimize training error; the paper provides no generalization bound, and the reported test performance is empirical.
  • domain assumption The QDEIM-selected sampling operator P yields full column rank for P V.
    Propositions 1-2 and Corollary 1 require (PV)^+ to be a left inverse of P V; the experiments do not report conditioning or verify full rank.
  • standard math Standard properties of SVD, Moore-Penrose inverses, ridge regression, and QDEIM row selection.
    Used implicitly throughout Sections 2 and 3; these are standard linear algebra facts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Empirical sparse regression on quadratic manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3GVLCECA

@misc{pith2026241209746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Empirical sparse regression on quadratic manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3GVLCECA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09746}
}
read the original abstract

Approximating field variables and data vectors from sparse samples is a key challenge in computational science. Widely used methods such as gappy proper orthogonal decomposition and empirical interpolation rely on linear approximation spaces, limiting their effectiveness for data representing transport-dominated and wave-like dynamics. To address this limitation, we introduce quadratic manifold sparse regression, which trains quadratic manifolds with a sparse greedy method and computes approximations on the manifold through novel nonlinear projections of sparse samples. The nonlinear approximations obtained with quadratic manifold sparse regression achieve orders of magnitude higher accuracies than linear methods on data describing transport-dominated dynamics in numerical experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Nonlinear model reduction with Neural Galerkin schemes on quadratic manifolds

    math.NA 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Quadratic-manifold Neural Galerkin reduced models give locally unique, residual-minimizing trajectories and, for linear full models, online cost independent of the full dimension.

  2. Operator Inference Aware Quadratic Manifolds with Isotropic Reduced Coordinates for Nonintrusive Model Reduction

    math.DS 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A greedy quadratic-manifold training procedure that incorporates operator-inference prediction error into the basis selection yields substantially more accurate reduced models than reconstruction-only training.

  3. A hyperreduced manifold learning approach to nonlinear model order reduction for the homogenisation of hyperelastic RVEs

    cs.CE 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A manifold-learning reduced-order model with DEIM and LSPG hyperreduction achieves two orders of magnitude speedup with ~0.1% error on an example hyperelastic RVE homogenisation problem.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Amsallem, M

    D. Amsallem, M. J. Zahr, and C. F arhat , Nonlinear model order reduction based on local reduced-order bases, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 92 (2012), pp. 891–916

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Anand and E

    V. Anand and E. Gutmark , Rotating detonation combustors and their similari- ties to rocket instabilities , Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 73 (2019), pp. 182–234

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Argaud, B

    J.-P. Argaud, B. Bouriquet, F. de Caso, H. Gong, Y. Maday, and O. Mula , Sensor placement in nuclear reactors based on the generalized empir- ical interpolation method, J. Comput. Phys., 363 (2018), pp. 354 – 370

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Astrid, S

    P. Astrid, S. Weiland, K. Willcox, and T. Backx, Missing point estimation in models described by proper orthogonal decomposition , in Decision and Control,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Astrid, S

    P. Astrid, S. Weiland, K. Willcox, and T. Backx, Missing point estimation in models described by proper orthogonal decomposition , IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 53 (2008), pp. 2237–2251

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Barnett and C

    J. Barnett and C. F arhat, Quadratic approximation manifold for mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier in nonlinear projection-based model order reduction, J. Comput. Phys., 464 (2022), p. 111348

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Barnett, C

    J. Barnett, C. F arhat, and Y. Maday, Neural-network-augmented projection- based model order reduction for mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier to reducibility, J. Comput. Phys., 492 (2023), p. 112420. 25

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Barrault, Y

    M. Barrault, Y. Maday, N. C. Nguyen, and A. T. Patera , An ‘empirical interpolation ’ method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretization of partial differential equations, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I, 339 (2004), pp. 667–672

    work page 2004

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Benner, P

    P. Benner, P. Goyal, J. Heiland, and I. Pontes Duff , A quadratic decoder approach to nonintrusive reduced-order modeling of nonlinear dynamical systems , PAMM, 23 (2023), p. e202200049

    2023

  2. [10]

    Berman and B

    J. Berman and B. Peherstorfer, ColoRA: Continuous low-rank adaptation for reduced implicit neural modeling of parameterized partial differential equations , in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Binev, A

    P. Binev, A. Cohen, O. Mula, and J. Nichols , Greedy algorithms for optimal measurements selection in state estimation using reduced models , SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif., 6 (2018), pp. 1101–1126

    2018

  4. [12]

    Camacho and C

    R. Camacho and C. Huang , Investigations on projection-based reduced or- der model development for rotating detonation engine , arXiv preprint, 2404.10323 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Carlberg, C

    K. Carlberg, C. F arhat, J. Cortial, and D. Amsallem , The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: Effective implementation and application to compu- tational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows , J. Comput. Phys., 242 (2013), pp. 623– 647

    2013

  6. [14]

    Chaturantabut, C

    S. Chaturantabut, C. A. Beattie, and S. Gugercin , Structure-preserving model reduction for nonlinear port-Hamiltonian systems , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38 (2016), pp. B837–B865

    2016

  7. [15]

    Chaturantabut and D

    S. Chaturantabut and D. C. Sorensen, Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 32 (2010), pp. 2737–2764

    2010

  8. [16]

    Chellappa, L

    S. Chellappa, L. Feng, and P. Benner, Discrete empirical interpolation in the tensor t-product framework, arXiv preprint, 2410.14519 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Drmaˇc and S

    Z. Drmaˇc and S. Gugercin , A new selection operator for the discrete empirical interpolation method—improved a priori error bound and extensions , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38 (2016), pp. A631–A648

    2016

  10. [18]

    Drmaˇc and A

    Z. Drmaˇc and A. Saibaba, The discrete empirical interpolation method: Canon- ical structure and formulation in weighted inner product spaces , SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 39 (2018), pp. 1152–1180

    2018

  11. [19]

    J. L. Eftang and B. Stamm , Parameter multi-domain ’hp’ empirical interpola- tion, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 90 (2012), pp. 412–428

    2012

  12. [20]

    Everson and L

    R. Everson and L. Sirovich, Karhunen–Lo` eve procedure for gappy data, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 12 (1995), pp. 1657–1664. 26

    1995

  13. [21]

    F arhat, P

    C. F arhat, P. A very, T. Chapman, and J. Cortial, Dimensional reduction of nonlinear finite element dynamic models with finite rotations and energy-based mesh sampling and weighting for computational efficiency , Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 98 (2014), pp. 625–662

    2014

  14. [22]

    F arhat, T

    C. F arhat, T. Chapman, and P. A very , Structure-preserving, stability, and accuracy properties of the energy-conserving sampling and weighting method for the hyper reduction of nonlinear finite element dynamic models , Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 102 (2015), pp. 1077–1110

    2015

  15. [23]

    Geelen, L

    R. Geelen, L. Balzano, and K. Willcox , Learning latent representations in high-dimensional state spaces using polynomial manifold constructions, in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2023, pp. 4960–4965

    2023

  16. [24]

    Geelen, L

    R. Geelen, L. Balzano, S. Wright, and K. Willcox , Learning physics-based reduced-order models from data using nonlinear manifolds , Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 34 (2024), p. 033122

    2024

  17. [25]

    Geelen, S

    R. Geelen, S. Wright, and K. Willcox , Operator inference for non-intrusive model reduction with quadratic manifolds , Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 403 (2023), p. 115717

    2023

  18. [26]

    Goyal and P

    P. Goyal and P. Benner , Generalized quadratic embeddings for nonlinear dy- namics using deep learning , Phys. D, 463 (2024), p. 134158

    2024

  19. [27]

    G¨uc ¸l¨u, A

    Y. G¨uc ¸l¨u, A. J. Christlieb, and W. N. Hitchon , Arbitrarily high order con- vected scheme solution of the vlasov–poisson system , J. Comput. Phys., 270 (2014), pp. 711–752

    2014

  20. [28]

    J. S. Hesthaven, C. Pagliantini, and G. Rozza , Reduced basis methods for time-dependent problems, Acta Numer., 31 (2022), p. 265–345

    2022

  21. [29]

    S. Jain, P. Tiso, J. B. Rutzmoser, and D. J. Rixen , A quadratic manifold for model order reduction of nonlinear structural dynamics , Comput. Struct., 188 (2017), pp. 80–94

    2017

  22. [30]

    J. T. Lauzon, S. W. Cheung, Y. Shin, Y. Choi, D. M. Copeland, and K. Huynh , S-OPT: A points selection algorithm for hyper-reduction in reduced order models, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 46 (2024), pp. B474–B501

    2024

  23. [31]

    Maday and O

    Y. Maday and O. Mula , A generalized empirical interpolation method: Appli- cation of reduced basis techniques to data assimilation , in Analysis and Numerics of Partial Differential Equations, F. Brezzi, P. Colli Franzone, U. Gianazza, and G. Gilardi, eds., Springer, 2013, pp...

    2013

  24. [32]

    Maday, O

    Y. Maday, O. Mula, A. Patera, and M. Yano , The generalized empirical interpolation method: Stability theory on Hilbert spaces with an application to the Stokes equation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 287 (2015), pp. 310–334. 27

    2015

  25. [33]

    Maday, O

    Y. Maday, O. Mula, and G. Turinici , Convergence analysis of the generalized empirical interpolation method, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 54 (2016), pp. 1713–1731

    2016

  26. [34]

    Manohar, B

    K. Manohar, B. W. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton , Data-driven sparse sensor placement for reconstruction: Demonstrating the benefits of exploiting known patterns, IEEE Control Syst. Mag., 38 (2018), pp. 63–86

    2018

  27. [35]

    Manohar, S

    K. Manohar, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz , Environment identification in flight using sparse approximation of wing strain, J. Fluids Struct., 70 (2017), pp. 162 – 180

    2017

  28. [36]

    Pagliantini and F

    C. Pagliantini and F. Vismara, Gradient-preserving hyper-reduction of nonlin- ear dynamical systems via discrete empirical interpolation , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 45 (2023), pp. A2725–A2754

    2023

  29. [37]

    Peherstorfer , Model reduction for transport-dominated problems via online adaptive bases and adaptive sampling , SIAM J

    B. Peherstorfer , Model reduction for transport-dominated problems via online adaptive bases and adaptive sampling , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 42 (2020), pp. A2803– A2836

    2020

  30. [38]

    Peherstorfer, Breaking the Kolmogorov barrier with nonlinear model reduc- tion, Notices Amer

    B. Peherstorfer, Breaking the Kolmogorov barrier with nonlinear model reduc- tion, Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 69 (2022), pp. 725–733

    2022

  31. [39]

    Peherstorfer, D

    B. Peherstorfer, D. Butnaru, K. Willcox, and H. Bungartz , Localized discrete empirical interpolation method, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 36 (2014), pp. A168– A192

    2014

  32. [40]

    Peherstorfer, Z

    B. Peherstorfer, Z. Drma ˇc, and S. Gugercin , Stability of discrete empiri- cal interpolation and gappy proper orthogonal decomposition with randomized and deterministic sampling points, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 42 (2020), pp. A2837–A2864

    2020

  33. [41]

    Peherstorfer and K

    B. Peherstorfer and K. Willcox , Online adaptive model reduction for non- linear systems via low-rank updates , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 37 (2015), pp. A2123– A2150

    2015

  34. [42]

    Raman, S

    V. Raman, S. Prakash, and M. Gamba , Nonidealities in rotating detonation engines, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 55 (2023), pp. 639–674

    2023

  35. [43]

    Rutzmoser, D

    J. Rutzmoser, D. Rixen, P. Tiso, and S. Jain , Generalization of quadratic manifolds for reduced order modeling of nonlinear structural dynamics , Comput. Struct., 192 (2017), pp. 196–209

    2017

  36. [44]

    A. K. Saibaba, Randomized discrete empirical interpolation method for nonlinear model reduction, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 42 (2020), pp. A1582–A1608

    2020

  37. [45]

    Sargsyan, S

    S. Sargsyan, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz , Nonlinear model reduction for dynamical systems using sparse sensor locations from learned libraries , Phys. Rev. E, 92 (2015), p. 033304. 28

    2015

  38. [46]

    Schwerdtner, P

    P. Schwerdtner, P. Mohan, A. Pachalieva, J. Bessac, D. O’Malley, and B. Peherstorfer , Online learning of quadratic manifolds from streaming data for nonlinear dimensionality reduction and nonlinear model reduction , arXiv, 2409.02703 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Schwerdtner and B

    P. Schwerdtner and B. Peherstorfer, Greedy construction of quadratic man- ifolds for nonlinear dimensionality reduction and nonlinear model reduction , arXiv, 2403.06732 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sharma, H

    H. Sharma, H. Mu, P. Buchfink, R. Geelen, S. Glas, and B. Kramer , Symplectic model reduction of Hamiltonian systems using data-driven quadratic manifolds, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 417 (2023), p. 116402

    2023

  41. [49]

    Shin and D

    Y. Shin and D. Xiu , Nonadaptive quasi-optimal points selection for least squares linear regression, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 38 (2016), pp. A385–A411

    2016

  42. [50]

    Singh, W

    R. Singh, W. I. T. Uy, and B. Peherstorfer, Lookahead data-gathering strate- gies for online adaptive model reduction of transport-dominated problems , Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 33 (2023), p. 113112

    2023

  43. [51]

    D. C. Sorensen and M. Embree , A DEIM induced CUR factorization , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 38 (2016), pp. A1454–A1482

    2016

  44. [52]

    Willcox, Unsteady flow sensing and estimation via the gappy proper orthogonal decomposition, Comput

    K. Willcox, Unsteady flow sensing and estimation via the gappy proper orthogonal decomposition, Comput. & Fluids, 35 (2006), pp. 208–226

    2006

  45. [53]

    Zimmermann, B

    R. Zimmermann, B. Peherstorfer, and K. Willcox , Geometric subspace updates with applications to online adaptive nonlinear model reduction , SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 39 (2018), pp. 234–261

    2018

  46. [54]

    Zimmermann and K

    R. Zimmermann and K. Willcox, An accelerated greedy missing point estimation procedure, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38 (2016), pp. A2827–A2850. 29

    2016

  47. [2004]

    43rd IEEE Conference on, vol

    CDC. 43rd IEEE Conference on, vol. 2, 2004, pp. 1767–1772 Vol.2

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.