Symplectic QTT-FEM solution of the one-dimensional acoustic wave equation in the time domain

Ilaria Perugia; Sara Fraschini; Vladimir Kazeev

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Symplectic QTT-FEM solution of the one-dimensional acoustic wave equation in the time domain

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a symplectic FEM in quantized tensor-train form solves the 1D acoustic wave equation in the time domain on meshes as fine as $2^{-15}$, with position and velocity errors decaying at the expected FEM rates.

desk verdict A well-built first QTT time-domain wave solver whose central scalability claim is not yet demonstrated, because no experiment shows fine grids, expected accuracy, and low QTT rank simultaneously. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11321 v1 pith:TQQMDNED submitted 2024-11-18 math.NA cs.NA

Sara Fraschini , Vladimir Kazeev , Ilaria Perugia This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065M1215A6965F10

keywords acousticwaveequationquantizedtensortrainQTT-FEMGauss–LegendreRunge–Kuttasymplecticintegratorenergyconservationlow-rankapproximationtime-domainfiniteelementmethod

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

This paper tries to establish that the quantized tensor train (QTT) decomposition, previously used for elliptic equations, can be carried over to the time-domain acoustic wave equation. The method combines continuous piecewise-linear finite elements on uniformly refined meshes with symplectic Gauss–Legendre Runge–Kutta time stepping, and it performs every operation on compressed QTT representations instead of on the full coefficient vectors. If the numerical evidence is right, solutions with mesh size as small as $2^{-15}$ can be advanced in time with per-step cost governed by small QTT ranks rather than by the mesh size, while the discrete energy is conserved to an accuracy controlled by the mesh size. The paper also marks where the claim stops: optimal rates for high-order time integrators are not reached without a better preconditioner, and the low-rank assumption is demonstrated only for smooth trigonometric standing waves.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the QTT (quantized tensor train) decomposition: a vector of length $2^L$ is reshaped into an $L$-dimensional tensor with two entries per mode and stored as a chain of small cores whose connecting ranks measure the compression. The paper constructs closed-form QTT decompositions of the mass, stiffness, inverse-mass, and preconditioned stiffness matrices, so every matrix-vector product, solve, and rounding step is performed on the cores without forming full arrays. Time integration uses Gauss–Legendre Runge–Kutta (GLRK) methods, whose exact preservation of quadratic invariants makes the discrete energy $E_L^{(n)}$ conserved; the one-stage (midpoint) method yields uniformly well-conditioned linear systems, while higher-order stages are preconditioned with a symmetric multilevel BPX-type operator $Q_L^{(q)}$.

What would settle it

Run the one-stage QTT scheme on a narrow propagating pulse and record the QTT ranks of the discrete position and velocity as the mesh level $L$ and the step index $n$ grow; if the ranks grow with $L$ or over time, the per-step cost stops being linear in $L$ and the claimed scalability collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the position–velocity system for the one-dimensional acoustic wave equation can be discretized so that every vector and matrix is stored and manipulated in QTT form, with ranks that stay bounded as the spatial mesh is refined. For the implicit-midpoint (one-stage GLRK) variant, the numerical experiments show position errors in the $H^1_0(\Omega)$ norm decaying as $2^{-L}$ and velocity errors in $L^2(\Omega)$ decaying as $2^{-2L}$, the same rates as the underlying finite element method, while the relative error in the discrete energy stays bounded by $2^{-2L}$. For five-stage GLRK at $L=15$ and $q=5$, the energy relative error stays bounded by $2^{-L}$ in the first steps and by $10^{-4}$ over the whole time interval, with no blow-up in time; the same optimal rates are reported for high-frequency standing waves with wave numbers up to $k=10$ using the midpoint method. The paper also states the boundary of the claim: for high-order GLRK integrators the proposed multilevel preconditioner only mitigates the ill-conditioning, so the optimal convergence rates are not achieved.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the discrete position and velocity vectors admit QTT ranks bounded uniformly in the mesh level and the time step, a property that is obtained heuristically for smooth standing waves but not proved, and that the paper itself notes may fail for moving wavefronts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Meshes as fine as $2^{-15}$ become usable in one-dimensional wave computations because the discrete state vectors are never formed or stored entrywise.
With the one-stage GLRK (midpoint) integrator, the method reproduces the underlying finite element convergence: position error decays as $2^{-L}$ in $H^1_0(\Omega)$ and velocity error as $2^{-2L}$ in $L^2(\Omega)$.
Discrete energy is conserved: its relative deviation from the exact energy stays bounded by $2^{-2L}$ for the midpoint integrator and, for five-stage GLRK on $L=15$ meshes, by $2^{-L}$ in the first steps and by $10^{-4}$ overall, so long-time simulations do not drift.
High-order GLRK integrators still lack an optimal preconditioner: with the proposed multilevel preconditioner the expected convergence rates are not attained, and the paper identifies an optimal preconditioner as necessary future work.
The QTT-FEM approach, previously developed for elliptic problems, is shown to extend to a time-dependent hyperbolic problem, making the same fine-grid, low-rank strategy available for the wave equation.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural test of the method's foundation would be to run the one-stage QTT scheme on a compactly supported moving pulse and to track the QTT ranks of position and velocity over time; the paper's rank bounds are heuristic, so rank growth with $L$ or $n$ would invalidate the complexity claim.
The suboptimal accuracy reported for high-order GLRK integrators suggests that the remaining bottleneck is the linear solver rather than the tensor compression; a rank-structured preconditioner that makes the velocity-slope system uniformly well-conditioned would plausibly restore the optimal $2^{-L}$ and $2^{-2L}$ rates, which the paper leaves to future work.
If rank stability could be proved for piecewise-smooth waves, the same combination of QTT compression and symplectic time stepping would extend toward two- and three-dimensional propagation and variable wave speeds, where the paper notes that point singularities can appear and where tensor-structured methods have already shown benefit for elliptic problems.
The uniform conditioning of the midpoint systems indicates that adaptive or very long time integration of oscillatory signals might run on this scheme without losing energy conservation, although the paper does not explore that direction.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a serious first step: it builds a QTT-compressed FEM for the 1D time-domain wave equation using symplectic GLRK integrators, and it gives explicit QTT decompositions with L-independent rank bounds for all the operators involved, with code to verify them. That is real, reproducible work. The energy conservation reported for the q=1 midpoint variant is clean, and the error rates for the initial-data approximation match the theory.

The problem is the central scalability claim. The paper wants to say the method reaches mesh size 2^{-15} per time step with FEM-level accuracy. But the experiments never show that combination. The q=1 method that actually attains the advertised rates is only run up to L=6 (Figure 3) and L=9 for high-frequency cases (Figure 7), where the full state is 64 to 512 unknowns, so QTT compression is not load-bearing. The one L=15 run uses q=5, and the errors in Table 6 are three to seven orders of magnitude larger than the discretization scales. The paper attributes this to the suboptimal BPX-based preconditioner and explicitly states that optimal rates are not reached. The authors are honest about this, but it means the headline result is not yet demonstrated.

There is also no comparison against a dense FEM or a standard solver, so the claimed complexity advantage is unquantified. And the rank bounds for the solution vectors are heuristic, only verified for smooth trigonometric standing waves; the introduction itself warns that moving wavefronts may not separate with low rank.

None of this is a fatal flaw. The mathematical skeleton is sound: unconditional stability and quadratic-invariant preservation are standard GLRK properties, and the operator decompositions are explicit. The gap is in the evidence, not the structure. If the authors can either demonstrate optimal rates with q=1 at larger L (say L=12 or more), or fix the preconditioner so q=5 reaches expected accuracy at L=15, the paper becomes much stronger. As it stands, it is a useful, honest contribution for researchers working on tensor-structured time-domain solvers, but it is not yet a proof that QTT-FEM scales to 2^{-15} for wave problems.

I would send it to a serious referee. The referee should push for a benchmark against dense solvers, a rank-stability check over longer times, and at least one experiment showing fine resolution, expected accuracy, and low rank simultaneously.

Recommendation: major revision, with the scalability claim toned down or demonstrated.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a QTT-compressed finite element method for the 1D acoustic wave equation, combining continuous piecewise linear FEM on uniformly refined nested meshes with symplectic Gauss-Legendre Runge-Kutta time integration for the first-order position-velocity formulation. The GLRK-FEM is reformulated as a sequence of linear systems, and explicit QTT decompositions are provided for all involved operators, so that the state vectors and intermediate slopes are manipulated in compressed form. The analytical parts establish unconditional stability of the time integrator and exact preservation of the semi-discrete quadratic invariant in exact arithmetic, while the numerical experiments investigate accuracy, energy conservation, and conditioning. The q=1 midpoint variant is reported to achieve the expected O(2^{-L}) and O(2^{-2L}) rates in the H^1 position error and L^2 velocity error for moderate levels, and energy is conserved to near machine precision in those tests. The q=5 variant at L=15 is presented as a scalability demonstration, but the paper states that optimal convergence rates are not reached in that regime.

Significance. If the combined accuracy and scalability claims were established, the paper would be a useful contribution to time-dependent QTT-FEM, since it supplies explicit low-rank decompositions of all components of a conservative wave-equation solver and demonstrates that a standard GLRK-FEM can be operated in compressed form. The strengths are the explicit QTT rank bounds for the discrete operators (Property 7.7), the use of a symplectic integrator with a proven quadratic-invariant preservation property, the honest reporting of the conditioning behavior, and the availability of code. However, the reported experiments separate the accuracy and scalability claims: the runs that attain the expected FEM convergence rates use the one-stage method at moderate levels, where the full state dimension is small, while the fine-level run uses a high-order method that misses the expected accuracy by orders of magnitude. The rank-stability assumption that underpins the scalability claim is heuristic and is only demonstrated for smooth trigonometric standing waves. The framework is promising, but the central demonstration of FEM accuracy at fine scales in compressed form is incomplete.

major comments (3)

[§8.1.2, Table 6] The reported L=15, q=5 experiment has final errors of 2.664e-3 in H^1 for the position and 1.892e-3 in L^2 for the velocity, whereas the corresponding discretization scales are h=2^{-15}=3.052e-5 and h^2=9.313e-10. The errors are therefore three to seven orders of magnitude above the expected accuracy, and the paper itself states that optimal convergence rates are not reached for this configuration. Since the only experiments that demonstrate the expected O(2^{-L}) and O(2^{-2L}) rates use q=1 with L at most 6 (Figure 3) or at most 9 for high-frequency data (Figure 7), no reported experiment shows fine grids, expected accuracy, and small QTT ranks simultaneously. The claim that the method allows the use of mesh size 2^{-15} while retaining the accuracy of the underlying FEM is therefore not supported by the present evidence.
[§8.1.1 and §1.2] The uniform QTT rank bounds for the position (up to 14) and for the residuals (up to 28) are 'obtained heuristically' and are only demonstrated for smooth trigonometric standing waves. Since the per-step cost of the QTT solver is governed by these ranks, the scalability claim requires either a rank-stability theorem or numerical evidence covering more general data. The introduction itself notes that moving wavefronts may not separate with low rank, and no argument is given to exclude rank growth with time or with the level L. If the ranks grow, the compression advantage, and with it the central scalability claim of the method, collapses. This is a load-bearing gap that should be addressed or explicitly removed from the claims.
[§4-§5, §8.1.2, Remark 7.8] The analytical results on energy preservation and the error estimates quoted from [14, Thm 8] concern the uncompressed GLRK-FEM. The QTT compression and the rounding steps that keep ranks bounded are not covered by any perturbation analysis, so the advertised exponential convergence and energy conservation are empirical properties of the inexact scheme. The paper should either provide a bound on the effect of the low-rank truncation on the error and the energy, or state more explicitly that these properties are only observed numerically for the compressed method. This distinction is important because the experiments only cover special initial data of trigonometric form.

minor comments (4)

[§10] The heading 'Acknowledegments' contains a typo and should be 'Acknowledgments'.
[§8.1.2] The sentence 'Table 6 shows the errors (55)' should refer to the errors defined in equation (56), not equation (55), which defines the numerical solution.
[Example 4.4] The Butcher tableaux for the q=2, q=5, and q=6 methods are difficult to read in the current formatting; using a standard tableau environment would improve clarity.
[§8.1.3 and §8.2.3] The energy plots are informative, but the text should state whether the reported energy errors are computed with respect to the exact energy or the initial discrete energy, since the projection errors in the initial data are nonzero.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained, with honest limitations (heuristic rank bounds, unconverged L=15 run) rather than circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce its predictions to its inputs by construction. Time integration rests on the external, established property that Gauss-Legendre Runge-Kutta methods preserve quadratic invariants (Hairer-Lubich-Wanner, [22, Ch. IV, Sec. 2.1]), and the semi-discrete energy is shown directly in Lemma 4.3. The fully-discrete convergence rates O(2^{-2L} + tau^{2q}) and O(2^{-L} + tau^{2q}) are quoted from French and Peterson [14, Th. 8], not from the authors' own prior work, and the experiments check errors against analytic standing waves (52)-(53) and (57). The QTT decompositions of finite-element operators are explicit algebraic constructions (Examples 6.12-6.13, Property 7.7), with rank bounds derived from [4, 26] and verification code in [13]; these are not fitted parameters and do not constitute circular evidence. The only heuristic element is the uniform QTT rank bound of 14 for discrete position vectors, stated honestly in Section 8.1.1 as 'obtained heuristically'; this is an unverified approximability assumption, not a circular derivation. Likewise, the L=15, q=5 run does not reach the optimal convergence rates, and the paper itself flags this in Table 6, Section 8.1.2, Remark 7.10, and the Conclusion, attributing it to the non-optimal BPX-based preconditioner. That is an internal correctness and robustness limitation, not circularity. Because the central claim has independent mathematical content and the self-citations to the authors' prior QTT work are supported by explicit decompositions and available code, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It rests on three kinds of unproved input: (i) standard existence and regularity theory for the wave equation, cited from [10,37,51]; (ii) a domain assumption that the initial data satisfy the pull-back conditions of Theorem 7.1, which guarantees low-rank QTT representations of the initial data; (iii) the authors' own Assumption 7.9 relating the time step to the space level, which is a discretization choice and controls the number of time steps. In addition, fixed QTT truncation ranks (14 for position, 28 for residuals) and the initial-data level eL=60 are hand-chosen parameters; the paper explicitly labels these heuristic.

free parameters (3)

QTT rank bound for position = 14
Section 8.1.1: 'TT rank bounds for the discrete position are up to 14 at each Richardson iteration. These bounds were obtained heuristically.' Used for all time steps; if ranks exceed this, truncation error is uncontrolled.
QTT rank bound for residuals = 28
Section 8.1.1: 'TT rank bounds for the residuals are up to 28 at each iteration', set heuristically to keep residual representation accurate.
Number of levels eL for initial-data quadrature = 60
Section 8.1.1: inner products (34) are approximated with eL = 60 levels; the accuracy of bgL depends on eL (Remark 7.5), and eL is a hand-chosen discretization depth.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Initial data u0 and v0 satisfy the pull-back conditions of Theorem 7.1 (e.g., trigonometric or polynomial functions).
Assumed in Corollary 7.3 and used in all numerical experiments (Example 7.2). Restricts the class of problems for which low-rank QTT initial data are guaranteed.
domain assumption The exact solution is sufficiently regular that [14, Thm 8] applies, giving error O(2^{-2L} + tau^{2q}) and O(2^{-L} + tau^{2q}).
Invoked in Remark 5.1 to justify convergence rates; the numerical tests use smooth standing waves satisfying compatibility conditions.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 7.9: tau = 2^{-ceil(L/q)}.
A discretization choice coupling time step and space level; it keeps spatial and temporal errors balanced but forces 2^{L/q} time steps, adding an exponential-in-L factor to total cost on top of the QTT per-step complexity.
standard math Standard variational theory for the wave equation (existence, uniqueness, regularity).
Section 2, cited to [10,37,51]; not proved in the paper but accepted as background.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symplectic QTT-FEM solution of the one-dimensional acoustic wave equation in the time domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQQMDNED

@misc{pith2026241111321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symplectic QTT-FEM solution of the one-dimensional acoustic wave equation in the time domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQQMDNED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11321}
}

read the original abstract

Structured Finite Element Methods (FEMs) based on low-rank approximation in the form of the so-called Quantized Tensor Train (QTT) decomposition (QTT-FEM) have been proposed and extensively studied in the case of elliptic equations. In this work, we design a QTT-FE method for time-domain acoustic wave equations, combining stable low-rank approximation in space with a suitable conservative discretization in time. For the acoustic wave equation with a homogeneous source term in a single space dimension as a model problem, we consider its reformulation as a first-order system in time. In space, we employ a low-rank QTT-FEM discretization based on continuous piecewise linear finite elements corresponding to uniformly refined nested meshes. Time integration is performed using symplectic high-order Gauss-Legendre Runge-Kutta methods. In our numerical experiments, we investigate the energy conservation and exponential convergence of the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11321 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Spectral condition numbers κ2 of matrix Q (q) L H (q) L Q (q) L (solid line), with Q (q) L defined in (50), and H (q) L defined in (49) (dashed line). The number of Runge–Kutta stages is q = 5 (left plot) and q = 8 (right plot). Algorithm 2 Preconditioned GLRK–FEM Input: u (n) L , vb (n) L Output: u (n+1) L , vb (n+1) L 1: ub (n) L ← CLu (n) L 2: ub (n,q) L ← (1, . . . , 1)T ⊗ ub (n) L , with (1, . . . , 1)T… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Horizontal axis: number of space levels L. Vertical axis: relative errors between the continuous initial data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Horizontal axis: number of space levels L. Vertical axis: relative errors at the final time tnt = T between the exact solution (52)-(53) and their discrete approximations computed using Algorithm 1, when compressed in the QTT format. The number q of GLRK stages is q = 1, i.e., the implicit midpoint method is employed. The position error in ∥ · ∥H1 0 (Ω) (solid-blue line with round markers) decreases as 2 −L (dashed-… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: L = 15 is the number of space levels, and q = 5 is the number of GLRK stages. The step size τ of the GLRK–FEM iterations in Algorithm 2 satisfies Assumption 7.9. On the horizontal axis, there are the discrete times tn = nτ ∈ [0, 1], n ∈ {0, . . . , nt} with nt = 23 . F…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: L = 6 is the number of space levels, and q = 1 is the number of GLRK stages. Accordingly, the number of time steps nt is nt = 2L = 26 . On the horizontal axis, there are the discrete times tn = nτ ∈ [0, 1], n ∈ {0, . . . , nt}. The plot shows the relative error (solid …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Horizontal axis: number of space levels L. Vertical axis: relative errors between the continuous initial data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Each plot corresponds to a different wave number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: On the horizontal axis, there are discrete times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Simulating Quantum Turbulence with Matrix Product States
quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A quantics matrix product state solver for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation reproduces soliton, vortex, and quantum turbulence dynamics with 10x to 10,000x memory reduction relative to direct numerical simulation.
A Low-Rank QTT-based Finite Element Method for Elasticity Problems
math.NA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A QTT-based finite element solver for 2D elasticity on partitioned domains is shown to cut memory use versus FEniCS, though the generality and convergence claims rest partly on post-hoc choices.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Abdulle, W

A. Abdulle, W. E, B. Engquist, and E. Vanden-Eijnden. The heterogeneous multiscale method. Acta Numer., 21:1–87, 2012

2012
[2]

Altmann, P

R. Altmann, P. Henning, and D. Peterseim. Numerical homogenization beyond scale separation. Acta Numer., 30:1–86, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Bachmayr

M. Bachmayr. Low-rank tensor methods for partial differential equations. Acta Numer., 32:1–121, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Bachmayr and V

M. Bachmayr and V . Kazeev. Stability of low-rank tensor representations and structured multilevel preconditioning for elliptic PDEs. Found. Comput. Math., 20(5):1175–1236, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Bales and I

L. Bales and I. Lasiecka. Continuous finite elements in space and time for the nonhomogeneous wave equation. Comput. Math. Appl., 27(3):91–102, 1994

work page 1994
[6]

Bansal, A

P. Bansal, A. Moiola, I. Perugia, and Ch. Schwab. Space-time discontinuous Galerkin approximation of acoustic waves with point singularities. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 41(3):2056–2109, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

R. Bellman. Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1961

work page 1961
[8]

J. H. Bramble, J. E. Pasciak, and J. Xu. Parallel multilevel preconditioners. Math. Comp., 55(191):1–22, 1990

work page 1990

Show all 51 references

[9]

TensorRefinement.jl, a Julia package for low-rank computations with functions

TensorRefinement Contributors. TensorRefinement.jl, a Julia package for low-rank computations with functions. https://github.com/TensorRefinement/TensorRefinement.jl, 2020

2020
[10]

Dautray and J-L

R. Dautray and J-L. Lions. Mathematical analysis and numerical methods for science and technology. Vol. 5. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992

1992
[11]

de Launey and J

W. de Launey and J. Seberry. The strong Kronecker product. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 66(2):192–213, 1994

1994
[12]

S. V . Dolgov, B. N. Khoromskij, and I. V . Oseledets. Fast solution of parabolic problems in the tensor train/quantized tensor train format with initial application to the Fokker-Planck equation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 34(6):A3016–A3038, 2012

2012
[13]

Fraschini

S. Fraschini. QTTwave.jl. https://github.com/sfrasch/QTTwave, 2024

2024
[14]

D. A. French and T. E. Peterson. A continuous space-time finite element method for the wave equation. Math. Comp., 65(214):491–506, 1996

1996
[15]

G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan. Matrix computations. Johns Hopkins Studies in the Mathematical Sciences. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, fourth edition, 2013

2013
[16]

Grasedyck

L. Grasedyck. Polynomial approximation in hierarchical Tucker format by vector-tensorization. Inst. für Geometrie und Praktische Mathematik, 2010

2010
[17]

Grasedyck, D

L. Grasedyck, D. Kressner, and C. Tobler. A literature survey of low-rank tensor approximation techniques. GAMM-Mitt., 36(1):53–78, 2013

2013
[18]

Guo and I

B. Guo and I. Babuška. The hp version of the finite element method - Part 1: The basic approximation results. Comput. Mech., 1(1):21–41, 1986. 31 A PREPRINT

1986
[19]

Guo and I

B. Guo and I. Babuška. The hp version of the finite element method - Part 2: General results and applications. Comput. Mech., 1(3):203–220, 1986

1986
[20]

Hackbusch

W. Hackbusch. Numerical tensor calculus. Acta Numer., 23:651–742, 2014

2014
[21]

Hackbusch

W. Hackbusch. Tensor spaces and numerical tensor calculus, volume 56 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer, Cham, second edition, 2019

2019
[22]

Hairer, C

E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner. Geometric numerical integration , volume 31 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2006

2006
[23]

P. C. Hammer and J. W. Hollingsworth. Trapezoidal methods of approximating solutions of differential equations. Math. Tables Aids Comput., 9:92–96, 1955

1955
[24]

Kazeev.Quantized tensor structured finite elements for second-order elliptic PDEs in two dimensions

V . Kazeev.Quantized tensor structured finite elements for second-order elliptic PDEs in two dimensions. PhD thesis, ETH Zürich, 2015

2015
[25]

Kazeev, M

V . Kazeev, M. Khammash, M. Nip, and Ch. Schwab. Direct solution of the chemical master equation using quantized tensor trains. PLOS computational biology, 10(3):742–758, 2014

2014
[26]

Kazeev and B

V . Kazeev and B. Khoromskij. Low-rank explicit QTT representation of the Laplace operator and its inverse. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 33(3):742–758, 2012

2012
[27]

Kazeev, I

V . Kazeev, I. Oseledets, M. Rakhuba, and Ch. Schwab. QTT-finite-element approximation for multiscale problems I: model problems in one dimension. Adv. Comput. Math., 43(2):411–442, 2017

2017
[28]

Kazeev, I

V . Kazeev, I. Oseledets, M. V . Rakhuba, and Ch. Schwab. Quantized tensor FEM for multiscale problems: diffusion problems in two and three dimensions. Multiscale Model. Simul., 20(3):893–935, 2022

2022
[29]

Kazeev, O

V . Kazeev, O. Reichmann, and Ch. Schwab. Low-rank tensor structure of linear diffusion operators in the TT and QTT formats. Linear Algebra Appl., 438(11):4204–4221, 2013

2013
[30]

Kazeev and Ch

V . Kazeev and Ch. Schwab. Tensor approximation of stationary distributions of chemical reaction networks.SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 36(3):1221–1247, 2015

2015
[31]

Kazeev and Ch

V . Kazeev and Ch. Schwab. Quantized tensor-structured finite elements for second-order elliptic PDEs in two dimensions. Numer. Math., 138(1):133–190, 2018

2018
[32]

V . A. Kazeev, B. N. Khoromskij, and E. E. Tyrtyshnikov. Multilevel Toeplitz matrices generated by tensor- structured vectors and convolution with logarithmic complexity. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 35(3):A1511–A1536, 2013

2013
[33]

B. N. Khoromskij. O(d log N )-quantics approximation of N-d tensors in high-dimensional numerical modeling. Constr. Approx., 34(2):257–280, 2011

2011
[34]

B. N. Khoromskij. Tensor numerical methods in scientific computing, volume 19 ofRadon Series on Computational and Applied Mathematics. De Gruyter, Berlin, 2018

2018
[35]

B. N. Khoromskij and I. V . Oseledets. DMRG+ QTT approach to computation of the ground state for the molecular schrödinger operator. Tech. Rep. 69, MPI MIS Leipzig, 2010

2010
[36]

T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM Rev., 51(3):455–500, 2009

2009
[37]

Lions and E

J.-L. Lions and E. Magenes. Non-homogeneous boundary value problems and applications. Vol. I, volume Band 181 of Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972

1972
[38]

Marcati, M

C. Marcati, M. Rakhuba, and Ch. Schwab. Tensor rank bounds for point singularities in R3. Adv. Comput. Math., 48(3):Paper No. 18, 57, 2022

2022
[39]

Marcati, M

C. Marcati, M. Rakhuba, and J. E. M. Ulander. Low-rank tensor approximation of singularly perturbed boundary value problems in one dimension. Calcolo, 59(1):Paper No. 2, 32, 2022

2022
[40]

Markeeva, I

L. Markeeva, I. Tsybulin, and I. Oseledets. QTT-isogeometric solver in two dimensions. J. Comput. Phys., 424:Paper No. 109835, 23, 2021

2021
[41]

I. V . Oseledets. Approximation of matrices with logarithmic number of parameters.Dokl. Math., 80(2):653–654, 2009

2009
[42]

I. V . Oseledets. On a new tensor decomposition. Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 427(2):168–169, 2009

2009
[43]

I. V . Oseledets. Approximation of 2d × 2d matrices using tensor decomposition. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 31(4):2130–2145, 2010

2010
[44]

I. V . Oseledets. Tensor-train decomposition. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 33(5):2295–2317, 2011. 32 A PREPRINT

2011
[45]

I. V . Oseledets and E. E. Tyrtyshnikov. Breaking the curse of dimensionality, or how to use SVD in many dimensions. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 31(5):3744–3759, 2009

2009
[46]

I. V . Oseledets and E. E. Tyrtyshnikov. Recursive decomposition of multidimensional tensors.Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 427(1):14–16, 2009

2009
[47]

The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states

Ulrich Schollwöck. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states. Annals of Physics, 326(1):96–192, 2011. January 2011 Special Issue

2011
[48]

Verstraete and J

F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac. Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully.Physical Review B, 73:094423, 2006

2006
[49]

G. Vidal. Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:147902, 2003

2003
[50]

S. R. White. Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups. Phys. Rev. B, 48:10345–10356, 1993

1993
[51]

J. Wloka. Partial differential equations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987. 33

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abdulle, W

A. Abdulle, W. E, B. Engquist, and E. Vanden-Eijnden. The heterogeneous multiscale method. Acta Numer., 21:1–87, 2012

2012

[2] [2]

Altmann, P

R. Altmann, P. Henning, and D. Peterseim. Numerical homogenization beyond scale separation. Acta Numer., 30:1–86, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Bachmayr

M. Bachmayr. Low-rank tensor methods for partial differential equations. Acta Numer., 32:1–121, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Bachmayr and V

M. Bachmayr and V . Kazeev. Stability of low-rank tensor representations and structured multilevel preconditioning for elliptic PDEs. Found. Comput. Math., 20(5):1175–1236, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Bales and I

L. Bales and I. Lasiecka. Continuous finite elements in space and time for the nonhomogeneous wave equation. Comput. Math. Appl., 27(3):91–102, 1994

work page 1994

[6] [6]

Bansal, A

P. Bansal, A. Moiola, I. Perugia, and Ch. Schwab. Space-time discontinuous Galerkin approximation of acoustic waves with point singularities. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 41(3):2056–2109, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

R. Bellman. Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1961

work page 1961

[8] [8]

J. H. Bramble, J. E. Pasciak, and J. Xu. Parallel multilevel preconditioners. Math. Comp., 55(191):1–22, 1990

work page 1990