Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

PRONE unifies DMD, SINDy, Koopman regression and related methods as variants of one Petrov-Galerkin construction using distinct trial and test dictionaries.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 02:10 UTC pith:R6WAMTT2

load-bearing objection PRONE gives a clean asymmetric Petrov-Galerkin framing that unifies DMD/SINDy-style methods under one regression and switches to singular modes, with a claimed L2 convergence result that still hinges on dictionary choice. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.27982 v1 pith:R6WAMTT2 submitted 2026-06-26 math.DS

PRONE: Petrov-Galerkin Operator Learning Unifies DMD, SINDy & Koopmanism

Matthew J. Colbrook , April Herwig , J. Nathan Kutz This is my paper
classification math.DS
keywords Petrov-Galerkin regressionDMDSINDyKoopman operatorsingular modesoperator learningdata-driven dynamicsregression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that data-driven approaches to nonlinear dynamics can be recast as a single regression problem using distinct trial and test dictionaries rather than requiring a model to map a dictionary into itself. This unification treats DMD, EDMD, SINDy, and Koopman methods as choices of dictionaries, weights, and constraints within the same framework. A reader would care because the approach replaces eigenmodes with singular modes that capture data-driven combinations of observables and their futures, identifies the limiting projected operator, and proves L2 convergence of the resulting predictor. Examples from chaotic systems and fluid flows demonstrate that this yields accurate predictions with far fewer parameters than neural operators.

Core claim

By posing the problem as finding K such that Psi(X)K approximates Phi(Y) with separate dictionaries Psi and Phi, the paper unifies multiple operator learning techniques under one construction. Dropping the self-mapping requirement allows singular modes to identify captured observables, their projected futures, and coupling strengths. The limiting projected operator is identified and L2 convergence of the nonlinear predictor is proved.

What carries the argument

The asymmetric regression Psi(X)K approx Phi(Y) with distinct trial and test dictionaries that enables singular modes instead of eigenmodes.

Load-bearing premise

Suitable distinct trial and test dictionaries can be chosen so that the regression captures the essential dynamics of the system.

What would settle it

Finding a dynamical system where no choice of distinct dictionaries yields a predictor that outperforms standard methods or violates the claimed L2 convergence.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Different methods arise from choices of dictionaries, weights, and constraints in the same linear algebra setup.
  • Singular modes replace eigenmodes as the natural objects for analysis.
  • The nonlinear predictor converges in L2 norm to the true dynamics.
  • Performance exceeds that of DeepONets, FNOs, and reservoir computers with fewer parameters in tested systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the unification holds, researchers could systematically explore new dictionary pairs to improve predictions in specific applications.
  • The emphasis on singular modes suggests that dimension reduction in dynamics should focus on observable-future couplings rather than invariant subspaces.
  • Testing on additional benchmarks would confirm whether the parameter efficiency generalizes beyond the presented examples.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PRONE (Petrov-Galerkin Operator Learning), a regression framework based on Ψ(X)K ≈ Φ(Y) with distinct trial and test dictionaries. It unifies DMD, EDMD, SINDy, Koopman regression, sparse regression, and low-rank regression as special cases differing only in dictionary choice, weights, and constraints. By dropping the self-mapping requirement on the finite model, the approach replaces eigenmodes with singular modes, identifies the limiting projected operator, proves L² convergence of the resulting nonlinear predictor, and reports numerical outperformance over DeepONets, FNOs, and reservoir computers on chaotic maps, the double gyre, a pitching-airfoil wake, and Lorenz-63, using considerably fewer parameters.

Significance. If the unification, singular-mode construction, and L² convergence hold under the stated conditions, the work supplies a coherent linear-algebraic perspective that clarifies the role of trial versus test spaces across existing operator-learning methods and offers a low-parameter alternative to neural operators for prediction, statistics, and dimension reduction in data-driven dynamics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Convergence theorem): the L² convergence of the nonlinear predictor is proved under the assumption that suitable distinct trial and test dictionaries exist such that the one-step regression captures essential dynamics without self-mapping; the manuscript must state explicit conditions on the dictionaries or the data measure that guarantee the iterated predictor remains consistent, because this premise is load-bearing for both the singular-mode replacement and the convergence claim.
  2. [§2.2] §2.2 (Unification): the statement that SINDy and sparse regression are recovered as special cases of Ψ(X)K ≈ Φ(Y) requires an explicit reduction showing how the SINDy sparsity constraint and dictionary choice map onto the Petrov-Galerkin form; without this mapping the unification claim remains formal rather than operational.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 (method comparison): add a column indicating the precise choice of trial and test dictionaries used for each listed method to make the unification immediately verifiable.
  2. [§4] §4 (Numerical examples): report the exact dimensions of the trial and test dictionaries and the singular-value truncation threshold for each experiment so that the parameter-count advantage can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on the manuscript. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Convergence theorem): the L² convergence of the nonlinear predictor is proved under the assumption that suitable distinct trial and test dictionaries exist such that the one-step regression captures essential dynamics without self-mapping; the manuscript must state explicit conditions on the dictionaries or the data measure that guarantee the iterated predictor remains consistent, because this premise is load-bearing for both the singular-mode replacement and the convergence claim.

    Authors: We agree that the convergence result would benefit from explicit sufficient conditions. In the revised manuscript we will insert a remark immediately after the statement of the L² convergence theorem that lists two concrete requirements: (i) the linear span of the combined trial and test dictionaries is dense in L²(μ), where μ is the invariant measure of the underlying dynamical system, and (ii) the training data are sampled from an ergodic measure so that the empirical one-step operator converges to the true projected operator in the appropriate operator norm. These conditions ensure that the singular-mode predictor remains consistent under iteration. The core proof strategy is unchanged; only the hypotheses are made fully explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§2.2] §2.2 (Unification): the statement that SINDy and sparse regression are recovered as special cases of Ψ(X)K ≈ Φ(Y) requires an explicit reduction showing how the SINDy sparsity constraint and dictionary choice map onto the Petrov-Galerkin form; without this mapping the unification claim remains formal rather than operational.

    Authors: We accept that an operational reduction is required. In the revised §2.2 we will add a short derivation that recovers SINDy exactly: set the trial and test dictionaries to be identical (Ψ = Φ, e.g., a polynomial basis), replace the unweighted Frobenius norm by a weighted norm whose weight matrix encodes the L¹ penalty on the entries of K, and solve the resulting constrained least-squares problem. The same construction recovers the sparse-regression variant by choosing an appropriate diagonal weighting matrix. The paragraph will contain the explicit matrix equations that demonstrate the reduction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: new regression framework and convergence proof are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper defines PRONE via the regression Ψ(X)K ≈ Φ(Y) with distinct dictionaries, shows existing methods as special cases by dictionary choice, drops the self-mapping requirement to motivate singular modes, and claims an L2 convergence proof for the nonlinear predictor. None of these steps reduce by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or renamed input; the central claims rest on the new asymmetric construction and the stated proof rather than tautological re-expression of the data or prior author results. The provided abstract and context contain no load-bearing self-citation or definitional loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the ledger is populated from the single displayed equation and the stated change from eigenmodes to singular modes. No explicit free parameters or invented physical entities are named.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard finite-dimensional linear algebra applies to the regression Psi(X)K approx Phi(Y)
    The framework is built directly on this regression equation.
invented entities (1)
  • singular modes no independent evidence
    purpose: Identify observable combinations captured by the data, their projected futures, and coupling strength between trial and test spaces
    Introduced as the replacement for eigenmodes once the self-mapping requirement is dropped

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5791 in / 1493 out tokens · 40172 ms · 2026-06-29T02:10:48.426896+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Data-driven dynamics often asks how to linearize a nonlinear system. We ask instead: which observables should be advanced, and where should their futures live? This leads to Petrov Regression Of Nonlinear Evolution (PRONE), a Petrov--Galerkin regression framework based on $ \Psi(\mathbf{X})K \approx \Phi(\mathbf{Y}), $ with distinct trial and test dictionaries. In this form, DMD, EDMD, SINDy, Koopman regression, sparse regression, and low-rank regression become variants of one construction: different dictionaries, weights, and constraints. We keep the linear algebra of Koopman learning, but drop the artificial requirement that a finite model map a dictionary into itself. With this asymmetry, eigenmodes are no longer the right objects. Instead, we use singular modes, which identify the observable combinations captured by the data, their projected futures, and the strength of the coupling between the two spaces. We identify the limiting projected operator and prove $L^2$ convergence of the resulting nonlinear predictor. We give examples from chaotic maps, the double gyre, a pitching-airfoil wake, and Lorenz--63, where PRONE outperforms DeepONets, Fourier neural operators, and reservoir computers with considerably fewer parameters. These examples show the same message: lift once, regress once, and let the singular structure reveal statistics, transport, prediction, and dimension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27982 by April Herwig, J. Nathan Kutz, Matthew J. Colbrook.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic construction of PRONE. Snapshot pairs are lifted through two possibly dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Singular modes for the inverse Arnold cat map. The colored fields show the right singular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Forecast of the chaotic cubic map from a model trained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Long-time statistics for the cubic map over a trajectory of length 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical pushforward weighting for the periodically driven double gyre, together with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Leading singular modes for the periodically driven double gyre. The test dictionary Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PRONE singular modes for Lorenz–63. Each panel shows one left singular mode evaluated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Coordinate-wise Lorenz–63 forecasts from a generic initial condition. The black dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Approximate SRB measures for Lorenz–63, computed by ergodic sampling and binning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left singular modes for the low-Reynolds-number pitching-airfoil wake. Columns show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Rank dependence for the pitching-airfoil model. Left: singular values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Weak-form Extended Dynamic Mode Decomposition

    math.DS 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    WEDMD uses compactly supported test functions and a generalized eigenvalue problem to approximate Koopman generator eigenpairs directly from noisy time-series data, avoiding derivative estimation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Optimization with sparsity-inducing penalties, 2011

    Francis Bach, Rodolphe Jenatton, Julien Mairal, and Guillaume Obozinski. Optimization with sparsity-inducing penalties, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Colbrook, and Gustav Conradie

    Nicolas Boull´ e, Matthew J. Colbrook, and Gustav Conradie. Convergent methods for koopman operators on reproducing kernel hilbert spaces, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    John P. Boyd. A comparison of numerical algorithms for fourier extension of the first, second, and third kinds.Journal of Computational Physics, 178(1):118–160, 2002

    2002

  4. [4]

    Brunton, Marko Budiˇ si´ c, Eurika Kaiser, and J

    Steven L. Brunton, Marko Budiˇ si´ c, Eurika Kaiser, and J. Nathan Kutz. Modern koopman theory for dynamical systems.SIAM Review, 64(2):229–340, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Brunton, Joshua L

    Steven L. Brunton, Joshua L. Proctor, and J. Nathan Kutz. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15):3932–3937, March 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    Brunton, Joshua L

    Steven L. Brunton, Joshua L. Proctor, and J. Nathan Kutz. Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics with control (SINDYc).IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(18):710–715, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Colbrook

    Matthew J. Colbrook. The mpEDMD algorithm for data-driven computations of measure- preserving dynamical systems.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 61(3):1585–1608, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Colbrook

    Matthew J. Colbrook. Infinite-dimensional spectral computation. Being reviewed, 2026

    2026

  9. [9]

    Colbrook, Lorna J

    Matthew J. Colbrook, Lorna J. Ayton, and M´ at´ e Sz˝ oke. Residual dynamic mode decomposi- tion: robust and verified koopmanism.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 955:A21, 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Colbrook, Catherine Drysdale, and Andrew Horning

    Matthew J. Colbrook, Catherine Drysdale, and Andrew Horning. Rigged dynamic mode de- composition: Data-driven generalized eigenfunction decompositions for koopman operators. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 24(2):1150–1190, 2025. 21

    2025

  11. [11]

    Colbrook, Igor Mezi´ c, and Alexei Stepanenko

    Matthew J. Colbrook, Igor Mezi´ c, and Alexei Stepanenko. Limits and powers of koopman learning, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Colbrook and Alex Townsend

    Matthew J. Colbrook and Alex Townsend. Rigorous data-driven computation of spectral properties of koopman operators for dynamical systems.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 77(1):221–283, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Brunton, and Matthew J

    Gustav Conradie, Nicolas Boull´ e, Jean-Christophe Loiseau, Steven L. Brunton, and Matthew J. Colbrook. Trustworthy koopman operator learning: Invariance diagnostics and error bounds, 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

    Estimating long-term behavior of periodically driven flows without trajectory integration.Nonlinearity, 30(5):1948, apr 2017

    Gary Froyland and P´ eter Koltai. Estimating long-term behavior of periodically driven flows without trajectory integration.Nonlinearity, 30(5):1948, apr 2017

    1948

  15. [15]

    Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    Loukas Grafakos.Classical Fourier Analysis. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, NY, 3 edition, July 2014

    2014

  16. [16]

    Colbrook

    Kelan Gray, Finlay Brown, Nicolas Boull´ e, and Matthew J. Colbrook. Deep embedded multi- plicative DMD for algebra-preserving koopman learning, 2026

    2026

  17. [17]

    B. O. Koopman. Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 17(5):315–318, 1931

    1931

  18. [18]

    On convergence of extended dynamic mode decomposition to the koopman operator.Journal of Nonlinear Science, 28(2):687–710, 2018

    Milan Korda and Igor Mezi´ c. On convergence of extended dynamic mode decomposition to the koopman operator.Journal of Nonlinear Science, 28(2):687–710, 2018

    2018

  19. [19]

    Nathan Kutz, Steven L

    J. Nathan Kutz, Steven L. Brunton, Bingni W. Brunton, and Joshua L. Proctor.Dynamic Mode Decomposition: Data-Driven Modeling of Complex Systems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2016

    2016

  20. [20]

    Applied Mathematical Sciences

    Andrzej Lasota and Michael C Mackey.Chaos, fractals, and noise. Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, New York, NY, 2 edition, November 2013

    2013

  21. [21]

    Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions

    Igor Mezi´ c. Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions. Nonlinear Dynamics, 41(1–3):309–325, 2005

    2005

  22. [22]

    Rowley, Igor Mezi´ c, Shervin Bagheri, Philipp Schlatter, and Dan S

    Clarence W. Rowley, Igor Mezi´ c, Shervin Bagheri, Philipp Schlatter, and Dan S. Henningson. Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 641:115–127, 2009

    2009

  23. [23]

    Peter J. Schmid. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 656:5–28, 2010

    2010

  24. [24]

    Low-Reynolds-number pitching airfoil direct numerical sim- ulations, 2022

    Aaron Towne and Scott Dawson. Low-Reynolds-number pitching airfoil direct numerical sim- ulations, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    Spectra and pseudospectra

    Lloyd N Trefethen. Spectra and pseudospectra. InThe Graduate Student’s Guide to Numerical Analysis ’98, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, pages 217–250. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999

    1999

  26. [26]

    Tu, Clarence W

    Jonathan H. Tu, Clarence W. Rowley, Dirk M. Luchtenburg, Steven L. Brunton, and J. Nathan Kutz. On dynamic mode decomposition: Theory and applications.Journal of Computational Dynamics, 1(2):391–421, 2014. 22

    2014

  27. [27]

    Pointwise and uniform convergence of fourier extensions, 2019

    Marcus Webb, Vincent Copp´ e, and Daan Huybrechs. Pointwise and uniform convergence of fourier extensions, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    Williams, Ioannis G

    Matthew O. Williams, Ioannis G. Kevrekidis, and Clarence W. Rowley. A data–driven ap- proximation of the koopman operator: Extending dynamic mode decomposition.Journal of Nonlinear Science, 25(6):1307–1346, June 2015

    2015

  29. [29]

    Williams, Clarence W

    Matthew O. Williams, Clarence W. Rowley, and Ioannis G. Kevrekidis. A kernel-based ap- proach to data-driven koopman spectral analysis, 2015. A Analytic Computations of Singular Modes for Cat Map We consider the inverse Arnold cat map F −1 x y =    x−y 2y−x+ 1 ! if 0≤ y x < 1 2 x−y 2y−x ! if 1 2 ≤ y x <1 x+ 1−y 2y−x−1 ! if...

    2015