pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.05091 · v3 · pith:MRNLVMULnew · submitted 2025-07-07 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Model Order Reduction Techniques for the Stochastic Finite Volume Method

Ray Qu , Jesse Chan , Svetlana Tokareva This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 00:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords stochastic finite volume methodmodel order reductionhyper-reductionQ-DEIMuncertainty quantificationhyperbolic conservation lawsreduced order models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reduced-order models with Q-DEIM hyper-reduction can reduce computational cost and memory use in the stochastic finite volume method for high-dimensional uncertainty quantification.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors incorporate interpolation-based reduced order model techniques into the stochastic finite volume method to lower the expense of computing stochastic integrals. They further apply Q-DEIM hyper-reduction for additional efficiency. This targets the curse of dimensionality in high-dimensional stochastic parameter spaces for hyperbolic conservation laws. A reader would care if this makes accurate uncertainty quantification feasible on standard hardware rather than requiring massive resources. Numerical tests indicate success in cutting both time and memory demands while keeping accuracy.

Core claim

By combining interpolation-based reduced order models and QR-based discrete empirical interpolation method hyper-reduction, the approach lowers both computational cost and memory requirements for high-dimensional stochastic parameter spaces in the SFV method.

What carries the argument

Interpolation-based reduced order models combined with Q-DEIM hyper-reduction applied to stochastic integrals within the stochastic finite volume method.

If this is right

  • The computational cost of the SFV method decreases for high-dimensional problems.
  • Memory requirements are also reduced.
  • High-order accuracy and stability properties are maintained as shown in experiments.
  • The method becomes more practical for complex uncertainty quantification tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This technique might apply to other high-order stochastic discretization methods.
  • Engineers could use it for design optimization under uncertainty with lower resource needs.
  • Further work could test it on real-world conservation law problems with many random variables.

Load-bearing premise

The reduced-order approximations preserve the high-order accuracy and stability properties of the original SFV method when applied to stochastic integrals.

What would settle it

Running the full SFV method and the reduced version on a test problem with increasing stochastic dimension and checking if the solution errors remain comparable within the method's order of accuracy.

read the original abstract

The stochastic finite volume method (SFV method) is a high-order accurate method for uncertainty quantification (UQ) in hyperbolic conservation laws. However, the computational cost of SFV method increases for high-dimensional stochastic parameter spaces due to the curse of dimensionality. To address this challenge, we incorporate interpolation-based reduced order model (ROM) techniques that reduce the cost of computing stochastic integrals in the SFV method. Further efficiency gains are achieved through hyper-reduction with a QR factorization-based discrete empirical interpolation method (Q-DEIM). Numerical experiments suggest that this approach can lower both computational cost and memory requirements for high-dimensional stochastic parameter spaces.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes incorporating interpolation-based reduced order model (ROM) techniques together with QR factorization-based discrete empirical interpolation method (Q-DEIM) hyper-reduction into the stochastic finite volume (SFV) method. The goal is to reduce the cost of evaluating stochastic integrals and thereby mitigate the curse of dimensionality for high-dimensional stochastic parameter spaces when solving hyperbolic conservation laws; numerical experiments are presented to illustrate the resulting savings in computational cost and memory.

Significance. If the reduced approximations can be shown to retain the formal high-order accuracy and stability properties of the underlying SFV discretization, the combination of ROM and Q-DEIM would constitute a practical advance for uncertainty quantification in high-dimensional stochastic settings. The work builds directly on established ROM and SFV literature and supplies concrete numerical evidence of efficiency gains, which strengthens its potential utility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical Experiments] Numerical Experiments section: the reported cost and memory reductions are not accompanied by error tables, convergence-rate studies, or direct comparisons against the unreduced SFV scheme on the same test problems. Without these data it is impossible to verify that the reduced-order stochastic integrals preserve the high-order accuracy asserted in the abstract.
  2. [Method] Method section (description of the interpolation-based ROM): the construction assumes that the solution manifold in stochastic space admits a low-dimensional smooth representation suitable for standard interpolation. For hyperbolic problems whose shock locations vary with the stochastic parameters, this manifold is typically non-smooth or discontinuous; the manuscript provides neither theoretical justification nor numerical tests demonstrating that the ROM error remains controlled under such conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'numerical experiments suggest' could be replaced by a brief indication of the specific test problems and observed reduction factors to give readers a clearer preview of the results.
  2. Notation: the distinction between the full SFV operator and its reduced counterpart is not always made explicit when stochastic integrals are written; consistent use of subscripts or superscripts would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions planned for the next version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Numerical Experiments section: the reported cost and memory reductions are not accompanied by error tables, convergence-rate studies, or direct comparisons against the unreduced SFV scheme on the same test problems. Without these data it is impossible to verify that the reduced-order stochastic integrals preserve the high-order accuracy asserted in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that error tables, convergence studies, and direct comparisons are necessary to substantiate the accuracy claims. In the revised manuscript we will add comprehensive error tables (including L1 and L2 norms relative to a reference solution), convergence-rate tables with respect to both spatial mesh size and stochastic polynomial degree, and side-by-side comparisons of the reduced-order SFV scheme against the unreduced SFV method on the same test problems. These additions will allow direct verification that the high-order accuracy is retained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Method section (description of the interpolation-based ROM): the construction assumes that the solution manifold in stochastic space admits a low-dimensional smooth representation suitable for standard interpolation. For hyperbolic problems whose shock locations vary with the stochastic parameters, this manifold is typically non-smooth or discontinuous; the manuscript provides neither theoretical justification nor numerical tests demonstrating that the ROM error remains controlled under such conditions.

    Authors: The referee correctly highlights a potential difficulty for hyperbolic problems featuring parameter-dependent discontinuities. While the numerical experiments in the current manuscript show acceptable error levels for the tested cases, we acknowledge the absence of dedicated tests on shock-dominated problems and of theoretical error bounds for non-smooth manifolds. In the revision we will include additional numerical experiments on problems with varying shock locations to assess ROM error behavior, together with a discussion of the method's practical range of applicability and its limitations. A complete theoretical justification for non-smooth solution manifolds lies beyond the scope of the present work and will be noted as future research. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation applies standard ROM techniques to SFV without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper presents the incorporation of interpolation-based reduced-order models and Q-DEIM hyper-reduction as a direct application of established techniques from cited ROM and SFV literature to lower the cost of stochastic integrals in high-dimensional parameter spaces. The abstract and described approach rely on numerical experiments for efficiency claims and assume preservation of accuracy and stability without defining the reduced approximations in terms of their own outputs or fitted parameters. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to self-citations, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or renaming of known results; the central premise remains an independent extension supported by external benchmarks in the referenced methods.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard numerical assumptions for finite-volume discretizations and reduced-order modeling; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of finite volume methods for hyperbolic conservation laws hold.
    The SFV method inherits these background properties.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5625 in / 1056 out tokens · 37938 ms · 2026-05-22T00:15:03.756870+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel (1992)

    LeVeque, R.: Numerical Methods for Conservation Laws. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel (1992)

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Godlewski, E., Raviart, P.-A.: Numerical Approximation of Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws, 1st edn., p. 510. Springer, New York, NY (1996). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0713-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0713-9 1996

  3. [3]

    Acta Numerica 16, 155–238 (2007)

    Morton, K., Sonar, T.: Finite volume methods for hyperbolic conservation laws. Acta Numerica 16, 155–238 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Applied Numerical Mathematics 48(3-4), 323–338 (2004) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2003.11.002

    Krivodonova, L., Xin, J., Remacle, J.-F., Chevaugeon, N., Flaherty, J.E.: Shock detection and limiting with discontinuous Galerkin methods for hyperbolic con- servation laws. Applied Numerical Mathematics 48(3-4), 323–338 (2004) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2003.11.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apnum.2003.11.002 2004

  5. [5]

    Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Toro, E.F.: Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/b79761

    work page doi:10.1007/b79761 2009

  6. [6]

    Mishra, S., Schwab., C.: Sparse tensor multi-level Monte Carlo finite volume meth- ods for hyperbolic conservation laws with random intitial data. Math. Comp. 81, 1979–2018 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-2012-02574-9

    work page doi:10.1090/s0025-5718-2012-02574-9 1979

  7. [7]

    Journal of Com- putational Physics 231(8), 3365–3388 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2012

    Mishra, S., Schwab, C., ˇSukys, J.: Multi-level Monte Carlo finite volume methods for nonlinear systems of conservation laws in multi-dimensions. Journal of Com- putational Physics 231(8), 3365–3388 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2012. 01.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012 2012

  8. [8]

    Journal of Computational Physics 228(7), 2443–2467 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2008.12.018

    Po¨ ette, G., Despr´ es, B., Lucor, D.: Uncertainty quantification for systems of conservation laws. Journal of Computational Physics 228(7), 2443–2467 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2008.12.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.12.018 2009

  9. [9]

    Journal of Computational Physics 217(1), 260–276 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.02.009

    Lin, G., Su, C.-H., Karniadakis, G.E.: Predicting shock dynamics in the presence of uncertainties. Journal of Computational Physics 217(1), 260–276 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.02.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2006.02.009 2006

  10. [10]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197(43), 3420–3434 (2008) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cma.2008.02.025

    Lin, G., Su, C.-H., Karniadakis, G.E.: Stochastic modeling of random roughness in shock scattering problems: Theory and simulations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197(43), 3420–3434 (2008) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cma.2008.02.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2008.02.025 2008

  11. [11]

    Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 235(2), 491–506 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2010.05.043

    Tryoen, J., Le Maˆ ıtre, O., Ndjinga, M., Ern, A.: Roe solver with entropy cor- rector for uncertain hyperbolic systems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 235(2), 491–506 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2010.05.043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cam.2010.05.043 2010

  12. [12]

    IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis 44(1), 536–575 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drad010

    Herty, M., Kolb, A., M¨ uller, S.: Multiresolution analysis for stochastic hyperbolic 21 conservation laws. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis 44(1), 536–575 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drad010

    work page doi:10.1093/imanum/drad010 2023

  13. [13]

    Journal of Computational Physics 229(18), 6485–6511 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.05.007

    Tryoen, J., Le Maˆ ıtre, O., Ndjinga, M., Ern, A.: Intrusive Galerkin methods with upwinding for uncertain nonlinear hyperbolic systems. Journal of Computational Physics 229(18), 6485–6511 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.05.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2010.05.007 2010

  14. [14]

    Gottlieb, D., Xiu, D.: Galerkin method for wave equations with uncertain coefficients. Commun. Comput. Phys. 3, 505–518 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    In: Abgrall, R., Beaugendre, H., Congedo, P.M., Dobrzynski, C., Perrier, V., Ricchiuto, M

    Tokareva, S., Schwab, C., Mishra, S.: High Order SFV and Mixed SDG/FV Meth- ods for the Uncertainty Quantification in Multidimensional Conservation Laws. In: Abgrall, R., Beaugendre, H., Congedo, P.M., Dobrzynski, C., Perrier, V., Ricchiuto, M. (eds.) High Order Nonlinear Numerical Schemes for Evolutionary PDEs, pp. 109–133. Springer, Cham (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 13(2), 339–374 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1137/ 23M1624750

    Harmon, J.J., Tokareva, S., Zlotnik, A., Swart, P.J.: Adaptive uncertainty quantification for stochastic hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 13(2), 339–374 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1137/ 23M1624750

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06574

    Walton, S., Tokareva, S., Manzini, G.: The Tensor-Train Stochastic Finite Volume Method for Uncertainty Quantification (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06574

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Journal of Computational Physics 115(1), 200–212 (1994) https://doi.org/10

    Liu, X.-D., Osher, S., Chan, T.: Weighted Essentially Non-oscillatory Schemes. Journal of Computational Physics 115(1), 200–212 (1994) https://doi.org/10. 1006/jcph.1994.1187

    work page arXiv 1994

  19. [19]

    Journal of Computational Physics 201(1), 238–260 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.05.015

    Titarev, V.A., Toro, E.F.: Finite-volume WENO schemes for three-dimensional conservation laws. Journal of Computational Physics 201(1), 238–260 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.05.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2004.05.015 2004

  20. [20]

    Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30(7), 598– 609 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2005.12.003

    Liu, X., Tai, K.: Point interpolation collocation method for the solution of partial differential equations. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30(7), 598– 609 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2005.12.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2005.12.003 2006

  21. [21]

    Gunzburger, M., Webster, C.G., Zhang, G.: Sparse Collocation Methods for Stochastic Interpolation and Quadrature, pp. 717–762. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12385-1 29

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12385-1 2017

  22. [22]

    Bjerhammar, A.: Application of calculus of matrices to method of least squares : with special reference to geodetic calculations. (1951)

    work page 1951

  23. [23]

    Handbook of Numerical Analysis, vol

    Bj¨ orck: Least squares methods. Handbook of Numerical Analysis, vol. 1, pp. 465–

    work page

  24. [24]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-8659(05)80036-5

    Elsevier (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-8659(05)80036-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s1570-8659(05)80036-5 1990

  25. [25]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing32(5), 2737–2764 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1137/090766498

    Chaturantabut, S., Sorensen, D.C.: Nonlinear Model Reduction via Discrete 22 Empirical Interpolation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing32(5), 2737–2764 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1137/090766498

    work page doi:10.1137/090766498 2010

  26. [26]

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

    Drmaˇ c, Z., Gugercin, S.: A New Selection Operator for the Discrete Empirical Interpolation Method—Improved A Priori Error Bound and Extensions. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38(2), 631–648 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1137/ 15M1019271

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Current Science 78, 808–817 (2000)

    Chartterjee, A.: An introduction to the proper orthogonal decomposition. Current Science 78, 808–817 (2000)

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    Journal of Sound and Vibration 252, 527–544 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.2001.4041

    Liang, Y.C., P., L.H., Lim, S.P., Lin, W.Z., Lee, K.H., Wu, C.G.: Proper Orthog- onal Decomposition abd Its Applications—Part I: Theory. Journal of Sound and Vibration 252, 527–544 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.2001.4041

    work page doi:10.1006/jsvi.2001.4041 2002

  29. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the 8th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, pp

    Drinea, E., Drineas, P., Huggins, P.: A randomized singular value decompo- sition algorithm for image processing applications. In: Proceedings of the 8th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, pp. 278–288 (2001). Citeseer

    work page 2001

  30. [30]

    Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation 3(1), 137–156 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42967-020-00061-x

    Wei, W., Zhang, H., Yang, X., Chen, X.: Randomized Generalized Singular Value Decomposition. Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation 3(1), 137–156 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42967-020-00061-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s42967-020-00061-x 2021

  31. [31]

    Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7(1), 159–193 (1954) https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160070112

    Lax, P.D.: Weak solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic equations and their numerical computation. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7(1), 159–193 (1954) https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160070112

    work page doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070112 1954

  32. [32]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 9(3), 445–473 (1988) https://doi.org/10

    Davis, S.F.: Simplified Second-Order Godunov-Type Methods. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 9(3), 445–473 (1988) https://doi.org/10. 1137/0909030

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    Journal of Computational Physics 27(1), 1–31 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(78)90023-2

    Sod, G.A.: A survey of several finite difference methods for systems of nonlin- ear hyperbolic conservation laws. Journal of Computational Physics 27(1), 1–31 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(78)90023-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(78)90023-2 1978

  34. [34]

    Abgrall, R., Tokareva, S.: The Stochastic Finite Volume Method, pp. 1–57. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67110-9 1 23

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67110-9 2017