Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Data-driven model order reduction for T-Product-Based dynamical systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that balanced truncation, balanced POD, and the eigensystem realization algorithm can be lifted into T-product tensor algebra, so image and video dynamical systems are reduced without flattening and with less memory and…

desk verdict Tensor-native MOR for T-product systems: a real extension with a broken error-bound proof and too-clean numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14721 v1 pith:53XAEV6A submitted 2025-04-20 eess.SY cs.NAcs.SYmath.DSmath.NA

Shenghan Mei , Ziqin He , Yidan Mei , Xin Mao , Anqi Dong , Ren Wang , Can Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.NAcs.SYmath.DSmath.NA MSC 93B1115A6993C05
keywords modelorderreductionT-productthird-ordertensorsbalancedtruncationproperorthogonaldecompositioneigensystemrealizationalgorithmT-singularvaluetensordynamicalsystems
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

Model order reduction normally treats a dynamical system as vectors and matrices, so tensor-valued data such as image sequences must be flattened before reduction. This paper argues that the T-product, a way to multiply third-order tensors through block-circulant convolution, lets balanced truncation, balanced POD, and the eigensystem realization algorithm operate directly on the tensor structure. The central claim is that truncating the singular tuples of a generalized Hankel tensor yields reduced T-product systems whose input-output behavior stays close to the original, while using less memory and computation than reducing the unfolded system. For T-balanced truncation the paper derives a worst-case error bound of at most twice the sum of the discarded singular-tuple norms. If correct, the result gives image and video dynamics a reduction method that preserves their multilinear structure.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the T-product and its singular value decomposition. Under the T-product, a third-order tensor acts on a matrix by block-circulant convolution, and the T-SVD factors a tensor into two T-orthogonal factor tensors and a block tensor whose frontal slices are diagonal, with the diagonal tubes called singular tuples. A discrete Fourier transform diagonalizes the T-product, so each frontal slice becomes an independent matrix problem; truncating the singular tuples by their Frobenius norm gives the low-tensor-rank approximation that drives all three reduction algorithms. The balancing transform $P=Z_c\circledast V\circledast S^{-1/2}$, $Q=Z_o\circledast U\circledast S^{-1/2}$ then maps the system to a reduced TPDS.

What would settle it

Compute the truncated T-SVD of the Hankel tensor $H\approx U\circledast S\circledast V^{\top}$ for a small random stable TPDS, form $T=Z_c\circledast V\circledast S^{-1/2}$, and test numerically whether $(Z_o\circledast U\circledast S^{-1/2})\circledast T$ and $T\circledast (Z_o\circledast U\circledast S^{-1/2})$ both equal the T-identity tensor. A single generic counterexample would invalidate the balancing construction and Proposition 4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that the entire balanced-truncation pipeline can be transplanted into T-product algebra. For an input-output T-product dynamical system $X(t+1)=A\circledast X(t)+B\circledast U(t)$, $Y(t)=C\circledast X(t)$, the controllability and observability Gramians solve T-Lyapunov equations, and the discrete Fourier transform decouples each into $s$ independent matrix Lyapunov equations. The generalized Hankel tensor $H=Z_o^{\top}\circledast Z_c$ is reduced by truncating its singular tuples, ranked by Frobenius norm, rather than by truncating singular values of a flattened matrix. The paper claims that the reduced system is again a TPDS, that it preserves controllability and observability, and that T-balanced truncation obeys the error bound $\|G-G_{\mathrm{red}}\|_\infty \le 2\max_i \sum_{j=n-k+1}^{n}\sigma_j^{(i)}$ over the discarded singular tuples in the Fourier domain. T-BPOD and T-ERA obtain the same kind of reduction from snapshot or Markov-parameter data, and the numerical examples report relative errors nearly identical to their matrix counterparts with substantially fewer parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the balancing tensor can be inverted by a specific formula that the paper asserts without proof; if that formula is wrong, the balanced realization and the error guarantee do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reduced systems stay in TPDS form, so the multilinear structure of image and video state data is preserved instead of being flattened into a long vector.
  • The Fourier-domain decoupling lowers the cost from roughly $O(n^3s^3)$ for balanced truncation on the unfolded system to $O(n^3s+n^2s\log s)$ for T-BT.
  • T-balanced truncation carries an explicit worst-case error bound, so the truncation level can be chosen with a guarantee on the reduced model's accuracy.
  • T-BPOD and T-ERA work from data; T-ERA in particular needs no model equations or adjoint simulations, so it can identify reduced tensor systems from experimental impulse responses.
  • In the reported examples the tensor methods match the relative errors of BT, BPOD, and ERA while using roughly a third of the reduced-model parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because one singular tuple contains $s$ scalars, truncating $k$ tuples in the tensor method discards about $s$ times as much spectral content as truncating $k$ singular values of the unfolded system; a matched-parameter comparison would test whether the reported savings persist when the reduced models have equal total parameter counts.
  • The observed difference between the T-ERA and T-BPOD reduced models, where classical ERA and BPOD coincide, suggests the two tensor variants realize genuinely different systems and would merit a separate equivalence analysis.
  • The same Hankel-tensor truncation idea could in principle be combined with other tensor factorizations, such as tensor-train or hierarchical formats, to push memory savings further, but the paper does not test that combination.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes three tensor-native model order reduction methods for discrete-time input-output T-product-based dynamical systems (TPDSs): T-balanced truncation (T-BT), T-balanced proper orthogonal decomposition (T-BPOD), and the T-eigensystem realization algorithm (T-ERA). The methods construct a generalized Hankel tensor, apply T-SVD, and truncate singular tuples to obtain reduced TPDSs, thereby preserving the block-circulant structure that is lost when classical MOR is applied to the unfolded representation. The authors provide algorithmic descriptions, memory and complexity counts, an H-infinity error bound for T-BT (Proposition 4), and numerical comparisons with classical BT, BPOD, and ERA on synthetic examples and an image-dynamics case study. The main claims are that the T-product-based methods reduce memory and computation while achieving errors comparable to classical methods and that T-BT admits a tensor-analog of the standard balanced truncation error bound.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a useful tensor-native extension of three standard data-driven MOR tools, with clear potential for image/video-type state data. The algorithms are concretely specified, complexity estimates are given, and the authors provide open-source code and reproducible numerical experiments, which is a strength. The main scientific stake is Proposition 4: the proposed H-infinity bound would be a genuine tensor analogue of the classical balanced truncation bound. The numerical validation also supports the practical claims, although the reported error coincidences need explanation. Because the two central load-bearing points, the inverse identity in the balancing construction and the passage from tensor truncation to per-block tail sums, are not properly established, the paper is not yet ready in its current form; the issues are local and repairable rather than fundamental.

major comments (3)
  1. [Proposition 4, proof of the balancing inverse identity] The proof asserts that for T = Z_c ⊛ V_tilde ⊛ S_tilde^{-1/2}, the inverse is T^{-1} = Z_o ⊛ U_tilde ⊛ S_tilde^{-1/2}. This identity is not correct in general. With H = Z_o^⊤ ⊛ Z_c = U_tilde ⊛ S_tilde ⊛ V_tilde^⊤, the quantity Q = Z_o ⊛ U_tilde ⊛ S_tilde^{-1/2} satisfies Q^⊤ ⊛ T = I, so the inverse of T is Q^⊤, not Q. The displayed expression does not reduce to the T-identity for generic Z_c, Z_o, U_tilde, V_tilde. Since the balanced realization in the proof is built from T^{-1} = Q rather than Q^⊤, it is not the realization used in Algorithm 1, and the claimed equality of the balanced Gramians is unsupported. This is a load-bearing step for Proposition 4 and must be corrected or the proof must be rewritten with the correct inverse.
  2. [Proposition 4, bound (13) and the truncation set] The derivation of bound (13) applies the classical balanced truncation error bound to each Fourier block and then uses a tail sum over j = n-k+1, ..., n in every block. However, T-BT truncates k singular tuples by their Frobenius norm, which selects one common index set K across all Fourier blocks. If the block Hankel singular values are not comonotonic, K is not the per-block tail set, and the discarded sum in block i is Σ_{j∈K} σ_j^{(i)}, not the tail sum appearing in (13). The displayed inequality therefore does not follow from the classical bound. The authors need either to prove a common-index version of the bound or to replace (13) by the appropriate sum over the chosen index set and justify why that set is the per-block tail.
  3. [Section IV, Tables I–III] The numerical tables report relative errors that are identical, or identical to two or three significant digits, between the tensor methods and their unfolded counterparts at nearly every truncation level (e.g., 1.2×10^{-14} vs 1.2×10^{-14} in Table I at k=55, 2.19×10^{-3} vs 2.19×10^{-3} at k=90, and similarly repeated in Tables II and III). Since T-BT, T-BPOD, and T-ERA reduce in a different space than standard BT, BPOD, and ERA, exact agreement at this precision is not expected and is unexplained. This undermines the validation of the central claim of comparable accuracy. Please report the actual reduced models or their differences, state whether the experiments were repeated across random seeds, and explain the mechanism that produces identical error values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Definition 7, Eq. (2)] The T-SVD definition as printed writes A = U ⊛ S ⊛ U^⊤ although V is introduced in the same sentence; it should be A = U ⊛ S ⊛ V^⊤.
  2. [Section II.A, Definition 7] The dimensions of the middle tensor S are not stated explicitly; since A ∈ R^{n×m×s}, S should be F-rectangle diagonal in R^{n×m×s}, and V should be in R^{m×m×s}. Please clarify.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected in revision, including 'nonlineaar' and 'other other' in Section II.A and 'Gramain' in the paragraph preceding Proposition 2.
  4. [Section IV.D, Figure 1(b)] The caption says results for k=0 and k=10 are similar to those for k=20 and are omitted; since Figure 1(b) is already sparse, it would be clearer to show all levels or at least state the visible levels explicitly in the figure itself.
  5. [Section IV.C, final paragraph] The paper notes that T-BPOD and T-ERA may not be equivalent and that this 'warrants further theoretical exploration.' This is an important structural difference from the matrix case; a brief explanation or a reference would strengthen the paper, even if a full proof is deferred.
  6. [Proposition 2, proof] The proof overloads the symbol Wc for both the tensor Gramian and the matrix Gramian of the unfolded system and writes Wc = ξ(Wc). Please distinguish the two objects notationally to avoid circularity in the definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reduction methods are tensor analogues of classical BT/BPOD/ERA, with no fitted parameters; the main proof gaps are mathematical-validity issues, not self-reference.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. T-BT, T-BPOD, and T-ERA are constructed by transcribing the classical balanced-truncation, BPOD, and ERA recipes into T-product algebra: compute T-Gramians via T-Lyapunov equations or snapshot tensors, form a Hankel tensor H = Z_o^T ⊛ Z_c, take a truncated T-SVD, and build transformation tensors P and Q. No parameter is fitted to data, and the reported reduction errors are computed after truncation rather than used to set any constant. The claimed H-infinity bound in Proposition 4 is an attempted tensor analogue of the external discrete-time balanced-truncation bound [54], invoked blockwise in the Fourier domain; it is not derived from the numerical examples and is not used to define the method. The only self-citations ([26], [35], [36]) supply background on TPDS controllability, observability, and data-driven TPDS analysis; Proposition 1 and Corollary 3 give proofs via the block-circulant/unfold representation and Fourier block-diagonalization, so the reduction does not rest on an unverified self-citation chain. There are real validity concerns, but they are not circularity: Proposition 4 asserts 'It can be shown that T^{-1} = Z_o ⊛ U ⊛ S^{-1/2}' without proof, whereas for generic factors the left inverse of T = Z_c ⊛ V ⊛ S^{-1/2} is S^{-1/2} ⊛ U^⊤ ⊛ Z_o^⊤, not the displayed tensor; additionally, truncating k singular tuples by Frobenius norm deletes one common index set in every Fourier block, which need not coincide with the per-block tail sums used in bound (13). The same-k numerical comparison of T-BT versus BT also compares k tubal singular tuples (ks scalar singular values) with k scalar singular values. These are proof-validity and experimental-design concerns, not cases where the output is equivalent to the input by construction. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external classical MOR results and receives a low circularity score.

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

The methods rely on standard T-SVD theory and the standard balanced-truncation error bound. No free parameters are fitted. The assumed stability of the TPDS is a domain assumption. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math T-product and T-SVD properties, including block circulant diagonalization via DFT, from Kilmer et al. (2013).
    Used throughout Section III to derive Gramians and Hankel tensor computations.
  • standard math Standard balanced truncation error bound from Al-Saggaf and Franklin (1987).
    Invoked in the proof of Proposition 4 for each frequency block.
  • domain assumption The input-output TPDS is stable so the Gramians in (7) are finite and the H-infinity norm is well-defined.
    Stated in Proposition 4 ('which are stable').
  • domain assumption The unfolded representation (6) is equivalent to the TPDS, and the Gramians factor as Wc = xi(Wc) and Wo = xi(Wo).
    Used in Propositions 1 and 2 to connect tensor Gramians to matrix Gramians.
  • domain assumption Truncating singular tuples by Frobenius norm gives the optimal low-tensor-rank approximation.
    Relied on in Algorithms 1-3 for truncation, citing Kilmer et al. (2013) and Zhang et al. (2018).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-driven model order reduction for T-Product-Based dynamical systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53XAEV6A

@misc{pith2026250414721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-driven model order reduction for T-Product-Based dynamical systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53XAEV6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14721}
}
read the original abstract

Model order reduction plays a crucial role in simplifying complex systems while preserving their essential dynamic characteristics, making it an invaluable tool in a wide range of applications, including robotic systems, signal processing, and fluid dynamics. However, traditional model order reduction techniques like balanced truncation are not designed to handle tensor data directly and instead require unfolding the data, which may lead to the loss of important higher-order structural information. In this article, we introduce a novel framework for data-driven model order reduction of T-product-based dynamical systems (TPDSs), which are often used to capture the evolution of third-order tensor data such as images and videos through the T-product. Specifically, we develop advanced T-product-based techniques, including T-balanced truncation, T-balanced proper orthogonal decomposition, and the T-eigensystem realization algorithm for input-output TPDSs by leveraging the unique properties of T-singular value decomposition. We demonstrate that these techniques offer significant memory and computational savings while achieving reduction errors that are comparable to those of conventional methods. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is further validated through synthetic and real-world examples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Impulse image data containing 21 frames. (b) Relative recon￾struction errors of Zj for j = 0, 1, . . . , 9 using the T-ERA- and ERA￾based identified systems with truncation levels k = 20, 30, 40, 50. The results for k = 0 and k = 10 yield similar curves to those for k = 20 and are omitted for clarity. from T-ERA differ slightly from those obtained from T-BPOD, as indicated by the variation in memory usage, where… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Model order reduction for linear and nonlinear systems: a system-theoretic perspective,

    U. Baur, P. Benner, and L. Feng, “Model order reduction for linear and nonlinear systems: a system-theoretic perspective,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 331–358, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Model order reduction in fluid dynamics: challenges and perspectives,

    T. Lassila, A. Manzoni, A. Quarteroni, and G. Rozza, “Model order reduction in fluid dynamics: challenges and perspectives,” Reduced Order Methods for modeling and computational reduction, pp. 235–273, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    A short review on model order reduction based on proper generalized decomposition,

    F. Chinesta, P. Ladeveze, and E. Cueto, “A short review on model order reduction based on proper generalized decomposition,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 395–404, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Model order reduction,

    F. Chinesta, A. Huerta, G. Rozza, and K. Willcox, “Model order reduction,” Encyclopedia of computational mechanics , pp. 1–36, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Model order reduction methods for geometrically nonlinear structures: a review of nonlinear techniques,

    C. Touz ´e, A. Vizzaccaro, and O. Thomas, “Model order reduction methods for geometrically nonlinear structures: a review of nonlinear techniques,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 1141–1190, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Model reduction of interconnected linear systems,

    H. Sandberg and R. M. Murray, “Model reduction of interconnected linear systems,” Optimal Control Applications and Methods , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 225–245, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Principal component analysis in linear systems: Controllabil- ity, observability, and model reduction,

    B. Moore, “Principal component analysis in linear systems: Controllabil- ity, observability, and model reduction,”IEEE transactions on automatic control, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 17–32, 1981

    1981

  8. [8]

    A survey of model reduction by balanced truncation and some new results,

    S. Gugercin and A. C. Antoulas, “A survey of model reduction by balanced truncation and some new results,” International Journal of Control, vol. 77, no. 8, pp. 748–766, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Balanced truncation of linear time-varying systems,

    H. Sandberg and A. Rantzer, “Balanced truncation of linear time-varying systems,” IEEE Transactions on automatic control , vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 217–229, 2004

    2004

  2. [10]

    An extension to balanced truncation with application to structured model reduction,

    H. Sandberg, “An extension to balanced truncation with application to structured model reduction,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1038–1043, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows,

    G. Berkooz, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley, “The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows,” Annual review of fluid mechanics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 539–575, 1993

    1993

  4. [12]

    A tutorial on the proper orthogonal decomposition,

    J. Weiss, “A tutorial on the proper orthogonal decomposition,” in AIAA aviation 2019 forum , 2019, p. 3333

    2019

  5. [13]

    An eigensystem realization algorithm for modal parameter identification and model reduction,

    J.-N. Juang and R. S. Pappa, “An eigensystem realization algorithm for modal parameter identification and model reduction,” Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 620–627, 1985

    1985

  6. [14]

    Consistent-mode indicator for the eigensystem realization algorithm,

    R. S. Pappa, K. B. Elliott, and A. Schenk, “Consistent-mode indicator for the eigensystem realization algorithm,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 852–858, 1993

    1993

  7. [15]

    Hankel matrices,

    H. Widom, “Hankel matrices,” Transactions of the American Mathemat- ical Society, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 1–35, 1966

    1966

  8. [16]

    How bad are hankel matrices?

    E. E. Tyrtyshnikov, “How bad are hankel matrices?” Numerische Math- ematik, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 261–269, 1994

    1994

  9. [17]

    Fast, generic, and reliable control and sim- ulation of soft robots using model order reduction,

    O. Goury and C. Duriez, “Fast, generic, and reliable control and sim- ulation of soft robots using model order reduction,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1565–1576, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    A review of biologically motivated space- variant data reduction models for robotic vision,

    M. Bolduc and M. D. Levine, “A review of biologically motivated space- variant data reduction models for robotic vision,” Computer vision and image understanding, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 170–184, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows,

    K. Carlberg, C. Farhat, J. Cortial, and D. Amsallem, “The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows,” Journal of Com- putational Physics, vol. 242, pp. 623–647, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Online structural health monitoring by model order reduction and deep learning algorithms,

    L. Rosafalco, M. Torzoni, A. Manzoni, S. Mariani, and A. Corigliano, “Online structural health monitoring by model order reduction and deep learning algorithms,” Computers & Structures , vol. 255, p. 106604, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    A novel data reduction approach for structural health monitoring systems,

    H. Bolandi, N. Lajnef, P. Jiao, K. Barri, H. Hasni, and A. H. Alavi, “A novel data reduction approach for structural health monitoring systems,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 22, p. 4823, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    S. V . Vaseghi, Advanced digital signal processing and noise reduction . John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Low-dimensional models for dimensionality reduction and signal recovery: A geometric perspective,

    R. G. Baraniuk, V . Cevher, and M. B. Wakin, “Low-dimensional models for dimensionality reduction and signal recovery: A geometric perspective,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 959–971, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    A. N. Gorban, N. K. Kazantzis, I. G. Kevrekidis, H. C. ¨Ottinger, and C. Theodoropoulos, Model reduction and coarse-graining approaches for multiscale phenomena . Springer, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Coarse-graining methods for compu- tational biology,

    M. G. Saunders and G. A. V oth, “Coarse-graining methods for compu- tational biology,” Annual review of biophysics, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 73–93, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Chen, Tensor-based Dynamical Systems: Theory and Applications

    C. Chen, Tensor-based Dynamical Systems: Theory and Applications . Springer Nature, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Tensor-based approaches for nonlinear and multilinear systems modeling and identification,

    G. Favier and A. Kibangou, “Tensor-based approaches for nonlinear and multilinear systems modeling and identification,” Algorithms, vol. 16, no. 9, p. 443, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Kerneliza- tion of tensor-based models for multiway data analysis: Processing of multidimensional structured data,

    Q. Zhao, G. Zhou, T. Adali, L. Zhang, and A. Cichocki, “Kerneliza- tion of tensor-based models for multiway data analysis: Processing of multidimensional structured data,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 137–148, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Controllability and observability of temporal hypergraphs,

    A. Dong, X. Mao, R. Vasudevan, and C. Chen, “Controllability and observability of temporal hypergraphs,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 8, pp. 2571–2576, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Explicit solutions and stability properties of homogeneous polynomial dynamical systems,

    C. Chen, “Explicit solutions and stability properties of homogeneous polynomial dynamical systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 4962–4969, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    A new approach to multilin- ear dynamical systems and control,

    R. C. Hoover, K. Caudle, and K. Braman, “A new approach to multilin- ear dynamical systems and control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13583 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tensor representations for action recognition,

    P. Koniusz, L. Wang, and A. Cherian, “Tensor representations for action recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 648–665, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Compact representation for dynamic texture video coding using tensor method,

    B. Zhou, F. Zhang, and L. Peng, “Compact representation for dynamic texture video coding using tensor method,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 280–288, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Learning spatial–temporal regularized tensor sparse rpca for background subtraction,

    B. Alawode and S. Javed, “Learning spatial–temporal regularized tensor sparse rpca for background subtraction,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Data- driven analysis of t-product-based dynamical systems,

    X. Mao, A. Dong, Z. He, Y . Mei, S. Mei, R. Wang, and C. Chen, “Data- driven analysis of t-product-based dynamical systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 8, pp. 3356–3361, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Data- driven control of t-product-based dynamical systems,

    Z. He, Y . Mei, S. Mei, X. Mao, A. Dong, R. Wang, and C. Chen, “Data- driven control of t-product-based dynamical systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14591, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Multilinear control systems theory,

    C. Chen, A. Surana, A. M. Bloch, and I. Rajapakse, “Multilinear control systems theory,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 749–776, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Approximation strategy based on the t- product for third-order quaternion tensors with application to color video compression,

    M.-M. Zheng and G. Ni, “Approximation strategy based on the t- product for third-order quaternion tensors with application to color video compression,” Applied Mathematics Letters , vol. 140, p. 108587, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Multiview subspace clustering via tensorial t-product representation,

    M. Yin, J. Gao, S. Xie, and Y . Guo, “Multiview subspace clustering via tensorial t-product representation,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 851–864, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Fast randomized algorithms for t-product based tensor operations and decompositions with applications to imaging data,

    D. A. Tarzanagh and G. Michailidis, “Fast randomized algorithms for t-product based tensor operations and decompositions with applications to imaging data,” SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 2629–2664, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Tensor decompositions and applications,

    T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, “Tensor decompositions and applications,” SIAM review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 455–500, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Block tensor unfoldings,

    S. Ragnarsson and C. F. Van Loan, “Block tensor unfoldings,” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 149– 169, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Kronecker product of tensors and hypergraphs: structure and dynamics,

    J. Pickard, C. Chen, C. Stansbury, A. Surana, A. M. Bloch, and I. Rajapakse, “Kronecker product of tensors and hypergraphs: structure and dynamics,” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1621–1642, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Third-order tensors as operators on matrices: A theoretical and computational framework with applications in imaging,

    M. E. Kilmer, K. Braman, N. Hao, and R. C. Hoover, “Third-order tensors as operators on matrices: A theoretical and computational framework with applications in imaging,” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 148–172, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Factorization strategies for third-order tensors,

    M. E. Kilmer and C. D. Martin, “Factorization strategies for third-order tensors,” Linear Algebra and its Applications , vol. 435, no. 3, pp. 641– 658, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    Exact tensor completion using t-svd,

    Z. Zhang and S. Aeron, “Exact tensor completion using t-svd,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 1511–1526, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Generalized tensor function via the tensor singular value decomposition based on the t-product,

    Y . Miao, L. Qi, and Y . Wei, “Generalized tensor function via the tensor singular value decomposition based on the t-product,” Linear Algebra and its Applications , vol. 590, pp. 258–303, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    T-product tensors—part ii: tail bounds for sums of random t-product tensors,

    S. Y . Chang and Y . Wei, “T-product tensors—part ii: tail bounds for sums of random t-product tensors,” Computational and Applied Mathematics , vol. 41, no. 3, p. 99, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Third-order tensors as linear operators on a space of matrices,

    K. Braman, “Third-order tensors as linear operators on a space of matrices,” Linear Algebra and its Applications , vol. 433, no. 7, pp. 1241–1253, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    Model reduction for flow analysis and control,

    C. W. Rowley and S. T. Dawson, “Model reduction for flow analysis and control,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 387–417, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Empirical model reduction of controlled nonlinear systems,

    S. Lall, J. E. Marsden, and S. Glava ˇski, “Empirical model reduction of controlled nonlinear systems,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 2598–2603, 1999

    1999

  44. [52]

    Reduced-order models for control of fluids using the eigensystem realization algorithm,

    Z. Ma, S. Ahuja, and C. W. Rowley, “Reduced-order models for control of fluids using the eigensystem realization algorithm,” Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics , vol. 25, pp. 233–247, 2011

    2011

  45. [53]

    A randomized tensor singular value decomposition based on the t-product,

    J. Zhang, A. K. Saibaba, M. E. Kilmer, and S. Aeron, “A randomized tensor singular value decomposition based on the t-product,” Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications , vol. 25, no. 5, p. e2179, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    An error bound for a discrete reduced order model of a linear multivariable system,

    U. Al-Saggaf and G. Franklin, “An error bound for a discrete reduced order model of a linear multivariable system,” IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 815–819, 1987

    1987

  47. [55]

    Tensor-tensor product toolbox,

    C. Lu, “Tensor-tensor product toolbox,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07247, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A multilinear singular value decomposition,

    L. De Lathauwer, B. De Moor, and J. Vandewalle, “A multilinear singular value decomposition,” SIAM journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1253–1278, 2000

    2000

  49. [57]

    Tensor-train decomposition,

    I. V . Oseledets, “Tensor-train decomposition,” SIAM Journal on Scien- tific Computing, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2295–2317, 2011

    2011

  50. [58]

    Hierarchical singular value decomposition of tensors,

    L. Grasedyck, “Hierarchical singular value decomposition of tensors,” SIAM journal on matrix analysis and applications , vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 2029–2054, 2010

    2010

Pith tools

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