Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Adaptive Reduced Basis Trust Region Methods for Parabolic Inverse Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that adaptively constructed reduced parameter and state spaces, embedded in an error-aware trust region, can accelerate IRGNM for parabolic inverse problems by factors of 4.66 to 17.89 in benchmark reaction-diffusion…

desk verdict Useful, reproducible extension of elliptic TR-IRGNM to parabolic inverse problems, but the trust-region rejection step cannot guarantee termination — shrinking the region cannot create an acceptable trial. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11130 v1 pith:AWGFQXCN submitted 2025-07-15 math.NA cs.NAmath.OC

Michael Kartmann , Benedikt Klein , Mario Ohlberger , Thomas Schuster , Stefan Volkwein This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.OC MSC 35R3035K9065M3235K57
keywords parameteridentificationmodelreductioninverseproblemsparabolicPDEsGauss-Newtonmethodstrust-regionproperorthogonaldecompositionreducedbasis
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

The paper proposes a way to make iteratively regularized Gauss–Newton (IRGNM) much cheaper for recovering unknown coefficients in parabolic partial differential equations from noisy data. Instead of solving the full-order state and adjoint equations at every trial, the algorithm builds low-dimensional reduced parameter and state spaces adaptively from snapshots, compresses them with proper orthogonal decomposition, and solves each IRGNM subproblem inside an error-aware trust region that checks the reduced model's accuracy before accepting a step. On four reaction-diffusion benchmark problems covering stationary and time-dependent reaction and diffusion fields, the resulting TR-IRGNM runs 4.66 to 17.89 times faster than the full-order IRGNM while matching the full-order reconstructions to within roughly 0.1% to 16% relative error. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's main contribution to be a practical, tunable speedup for parabolic parameter identification that keeps the regularization structure of IRGNM intact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the error-aware trust-region reduced-basis loop. At each outer iteration a reduced parameter space $Q_r^{(i)}$ and a reduced state space $V_r^{(i)}$ are constructed by POD-truncated enrichment from full-order gradients, primal states, and adjoint states, and the IRGNM subproblem is solved only within a trust region defined by the ratio of a residual-based a posteriori error estimator to the reduced objective value. This loop does two jobs: it certifies that the reduced model is accurate enough at accepted steps through the sufficient-decrease and error-estimator checks, and it keeps the reduced bases minimal by adding only the POD modes needed to meet a chosen tolerance $\epsilon_{\mathrm{POD}}$.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 2 on a parabolic parameter identification problem and record at each outer iteration whether a trial parameter satisfying condition (4.34) is found; an instance in which the trust-region radius keeps shrinking and no accepted iterate is produced, or in which the outer loop fails to terminate, would refute the method's reliability claim. A milder quantitative check is to vary random initializations, noise draws, and $\epsilon_{\mathrm{POD}}$ values and look for unbounded growth in rejected trial steps or stagnation of the full-order objective.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the computational bottleneck of IRGNM for parabolic inverse problems—the repeated high-dimensional solution of linearized primal and adjoint problems—can be overcome by a combined reduction of the parameter and state spaces, and that the resulting reduced surrogate can be made reliable through an error-aware trust-region strategy. The algorithm TR-IRGNM enriches the reduced parameter space with POD-compressed full-order gradients and the reduced state space with POD-compressed primal and adjoint trajectories, solves each local subproblem by projected gradient descent in the reduced admissible set, and only accepts a trial step after a sufficient-decrease check in the full-order objective supported by residual-based a posteriori error estimates. In the numerical experiments the reconstructed reaction and diffusion fields differ from the full-order reconstructions by about 0.1% to 16% relative error, while the total computation time drops by factors between 4.66 and 17.89 and the number of full-order solves decreases sharply.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the optimization never stagnates: the algorithm assumes that at every outer iteration a trial reduced parameter satisfying the sufficient-decrease condition (4.34) can be found, while Remark 4.1 concedes that this is not guaranteed and reports only that it never failed in the numerical experiments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported behavior holds beyond the four benchmarks, parabolic parameter identification can be run at a fraction of full-order cost while preserving the discrepancy-principle stopping and the qualitative reconstruction quality.
  • The adaptive enrichment strategy removes the need for a globally accurate reduced model; only locally accurate surrogates along the IRGNM path are required.
  • For time-dependent parameter fields the time-dependent gradients provide 50 snapshots per enrichment, so the reduced parameter space becomes expressive quickly and the outer iteration count drops (three instead of twelve in the reaction test).
  • Tightening the POD tolerance $\epsilon_{\mathrm{POD}}$ trades slightly larger reduced spaces for smaller reconstruction error, giving a single tuning knob for the accuracy-speed balance.
  • The largest reported speedup, 17.89, occurs for time-dependent diffusion reconstruction, indicating that the method helps most where the full-order IRGNM is most expensive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's experiments, the same combined reduction strategy should transfer to other affine-parameter parabolic forward operators, such as convection-diffusion or linear wave equations, provided adjoint solutions and residual estimators are available.
  • A natural next step the paper leaves open is to couple the POD tolerance, the trust-region radius, and the reduced-space dimension to the noise level $\delta$, which would turn the empirical reliability into a convergence result as $\delta \to 0$.
  • The observed dependence of speedup and accuracy on $\epsilon_{\mathrm{POD}}$ suggests an automatic tolerance-selection rule: choose the smallest tolerance for which the estimated time to completion still beats the full-order method.
  • Because the diffusion reconstructions smooth sharp material interfaces, an extension with spatially adaptive basis enrichment would be a worthwhile stress test for the method.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TR-IRGNM, an adaptive reduced-basis trust-region variant of the iteratively regularized Gauss-Newton method for parameter identification in parabolic PDEs. It extends the authors' earlier elliptic method [44] by combining simultaneous state and parameter space reduction, POD-based adaptive enrichment, and a residual-based a posteriori error estimator that defines an error-aware trust region. Numerical experiments on four reaction-diffusion scenarios (stationary and time-dependent reaction/diffusion fields) report speedups between 4.66 and 17.89 over a full-order IRGNM benchmark, with reconstructed parameters matching the full-order reconstructions to within 0.1% to 16% relative error. The code is released for reproducibility.

Significance. If the identified gaps are resolved, the method is a practically useful contribution to large-scale dynamic inverse problems: it demonstrates that combined parameter/state reduction can be made adaptive and local inside a Gauss-Newton iteration for parabolic problems, and it provides systematic numerical evidence across four scenarios. Strengths include the independent validation against FOM-IRGNM, the sweep over POD tolerances, the release of reproducible code [55], and the clear discussion of computational bottlenecks such as O(NV) residual evaluations. However, the paper's central claim of a 'certified' framework is currently stronger than its theoretical support: the error estimator is imported with an unproven omission, and termination of the trust-region loop is assumed rather than guaranteed. The numerical evidence is persuasive but does not by itself establish the reliability assertions in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Remark 4.1 and Algorithm 2, lines 17–27] The algorithm's termination is not guaranteed. Remark 4.1 concedes that a trial point satisfying (4.34) may never be found, and the only response to rejection in Algorithm 2 (lines 25–27) is to keep q_r and the reduced spaces fixed and shrink η to β3η. Since the trust regions T(η) are nested, any point in T(β3η) was already in T(η), and condition (4.34) compares Jh(q_trial) with Jr(q_AGC); as η shrinks, both q_trial and q_AGC tend to q_r, so (4.34) tends to the false inequality Jh(q_r) ≤ Jr(q_r), which is false by (4.29). Thus the shrink rule cannot, by itself, manufacture an acceptable trial. The empirical observation that stagnation never occurred does not support the abstract's claim that the framework 'certifies' reliability. Please either prove finite termination under explicit assumptions, modify the rejection step (e.g., enrich the spaces and recompute the AGC), or restrict the certification claim accordingly.
  2. [§3.2.1, Proposition 3.2] The proof of the a posteriori error estimator is delegated to [53, Lemma 8, Theorem 9] with the statement that 'the last term ... can be omitted, because the reduced primal ur and adjoint states pr are elements of the same space V_r^K'. This justification is not substantiated: the omitted term in the cited theorem couples the primal and adjoint residuals, and co-membership in V_r^K does not by itself eliminate that coupling. Because this estimator defines the trust-region radius and underpins the sufficient/necessary tests (4.35)–(4.36), please provide a complete, self-contained proof or quote the precise theorem with a rigorous derivation of the omission.
  3. [§4.1, Algorithm 2, lines 10–12] When q_trial_r = q_AGC_r, the algorithm accepts the AGC as the next iterate without checking (4.34). Condition (4.29) only ensures Jr(q_AGC) < Jh(q_r), which does not imply Jh(q_AGC) ≤ Jr(q_AGC). Therefore the monotone decrease Jh(q(i+1)) < Jh(q(i)) asserted after (4.34) is not established for this branch. Please verify (4.34) before accepting the AGC, or prove that the construction of the AGC makes this condition automatic.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 2, line 21] The assignment q(i+1)_r = q(i)_AGC,r appears to be a typo; it should presumably be q(i)_trial,r to match the surrounding acceptance logic and the description in the text.
  2. [Algorithm 2, line 2] The while condition uses q(i,l)_r, but i is the outer iteration index and l is the inner IRGNM index; the condition should refer to the current outer iterate, e.g., q(i)_r, for consistency.
  3. [§4.1 and §4.2] There are several typos: 'Additonally, it is has to be verfied' and 'startegies' should be corrected.
  4. [§4, definition of T(i)] The trust region T(i) is defined as a subset of QK,(i)_ad,r ⊂ Qad, but Qad is the infinite-dimensional admissible set; for consistency with the discrete setting it should be QK_ad,h or the appropriate discrete admissible set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TR-IRGNM is benchmarked against an independent full-order model and its error estimator is taken from external prior work; Remark 4.1 is a genuine termination gap, not a circular argument.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The reduced-order reconstructions are compared with FOM-IRGNM reconstructions computed from the full-order model (Section 5, Tables 1-4), and the acceptance test (4.34) evaluates the full-order objective Jh at trial points, so the reported speedups and errors are measured against an independent benchmark rather than fitted. The a posteriori error estimator in Proposition 3.2 is imported from the external reference [53] (Lemma 8, Theorem 9), not from the authors' own prior work, and the trust-region enrichment in Section 4.2 uses full-order gradients and primal/adjoint snapshots as standard projection data. The paper extends the authors' earlier elliptic method [44] to parabolic problems, but that is a natural continuation and is not used as the proof of correctness. The explicit limitation in Remark 4.1, admitting that a trial q_trial satisfying (4.34) may not be found and that stagnation is assumed not to occur, is a correctness and termination concern, not a circularity: the algorithm is not predicting a quantity that was already used to define or fit its inputs. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own assumptions, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central algorithmic claim rests mainly on standard well-posedness assumptions, a cited error-estimator bound with a new simplification, and an unproven termination assumption. No new physical entities are introduced. The many hand-chosen hyperparameters affect the quantitative outcome but are typical for trust-region methods.

free parameters (6)
  • POD tolerance epsilon_POD = scanned from 1e-9 to 1e-14
    Controls the truncation of POD basis enrichment; directly influences reduced space dimensions, speedups, and reconstruction errors in all four runs.
  • Initial trust-region radius eta^(0) = 0.1
    Chosen by hand; sets the initial size of the certified region.
  • Trust-region factors beta1, beta2, beta3 = 0.95, 0.75, 0.5
    Chosen by hand; govern acceptance, radius growth, and shrinkage.
  • Armijo constant kappa_arm = 1e-12
    Chosen by hand; used in the sufficient decay condition for the AGC.
  • Discrepancy parameters tau, tilde_tau = 3.5, 3.5
    Chosen by hand; determine the stopping criterion relative to the noise level.
  • Initial regularization alpha_0 = 1e-5
    Chosen by hand; initial Tikhonov parameter for the IRGNM.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: A(q(t)) is coercive, continuous, and affine in q; q_ad has a positive lower bound.
    Ensures well-posedness of primal and adjoint parabolic problems and enables the affine decomposition (3.20) used throughout the reduced model.
  • ad hoc to paper The a posteriori error estimator bound in Proposition 3.2, adopted from [53, Lemma 8, Theorem 9] with an omitted term, is valid.
    The proof is not given; the paper asserts the omitted term vanishes because reduced primal and adjoint states lie in the same space V_r^K.
  • ad hoc to paper No-stagnation assumption: a trial point satisfying (4.34) is always found in finite time.
    Remark 4.1 explicitly assumes stagnation does not occur, with no proof; the algorithm could otherwise loop indefinitely.
  • standard math The full-order IRGNM converges for the test problems under known conditions from [24].
    The FOM-IRGNM serves as the reference solution; its convergence is cited from the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Reduced Basis Trust Region Methods for Parabolic Inverse Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AWGFQXCN

@misc{pith2026250711130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Reduced Basis Trust Region Methods for Parabolic Inverse Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AWGFQXCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11130}
}
read the original abstract

We consider nonlinear inverse problems arising in the context of parameter identification for parabolic partial differential equations (PDEs). For stable reconstructions, regularization methods such as the iteratively regularized Gauss-Newton method (IRGNM) are commonly used, but their application is computationally demanding due to the high-dimensional nature of PDE discretizations. To address this bottleneck, we propose a reduced-order modeling approach that accelerates both the state and adjoint evaluations required for derivative-based optimization. Our method builds on the recent contribution [Kartmann et al. Adaptive reduced basis trust region methods for parameter identification problems. Comput. Sci. Eng. 1, 3 (2024)] for elliptic forward operators and constructs the reduced forward operator adaptively in an online fashion, combining both parameter and state space reduction. To ensure reliability, we embed the IRGNM iteration within an adaptive, error-aware trust-region framework that certifies the accuracy of the reduced-order approximations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach through numerical results for both time-dependent and time-independent parameter identification problems in dynamic reaction-diffusion systems. The implementation is made available for reproducibility and further use.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optimality-Based Control Space Reduction for Infinite-Dimensional Control Spaces

    math.OC 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A state-space reduction in linear-quadratic parabolic optimal control automatically induces an equivalent control-space reduction, with certified error bounds and a convergent adaptive algorithm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [44]

    Computational Science and Engineering 1(3) (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s44207-024-00002-z

    Kartmann, M., Keil, T., Ohlberger, M., Volkwein, S., Kaltenbacher, B.: Adap- tive reduced basis trust region methods for parameter identification problems. Computational Science and Engineering 1(3) (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s44207-024-00002-z

    work page 2024

  2. [55]

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15834305

    Kartmann, M., Klein, B., Ohlberger, M., Schuster, T., Volkwein, S.: Software for Adaptive Reduced Basis Trust Region Methods for Parabolic Inverse Problems (2025). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15834305

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15834305 2025

  3. [1]

    all-at-once formulations

    Kaltenbacher, B., Kirchner, A., Vexler, B.: Goal oriented adaptivity in the IRGNM for parameter identification in PDEs: II. all-at-once formulations. Inverse Problems 30(2), 045002 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/30/4/045002

    doi:10.1088/0266-5611/30/4/045002 2014

  4. [2]

    PhD thesis, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2014)

    Kirchner, A.: Adaptive regularization and discretization for nonlinear inverse problems with PDEs. PhD thesis, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Springer, Heidelberg (2021)

    Kaltenbacher, B., Schuster, T., Wald, A.: Time-dependent Problems in Imaging and Parameter Identification. Springer, Heidelberg (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-57784-1 33

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Inverse Problems 31(2), 025006 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/31/2/ 025006

    Binder, F., Sch¨ opfer, F., Schuster, T.: Defect localization in fibre-reinforced com- posites by computing external volume forces from surface sensor measurements. Inverse Problems 31(2), 025006 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/31/2/ 025006

    doi:10.1088/0266-5611/31/2/ 2015

  7. [6]

    Time-dependent problems in imaging and parameter identification, 165–190 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57784-1 6

    Klein, R., Schuster, T., Wald, A.: Sequential subspace optimization for recov- ering stored energy functions in hyperelastic materials from time-dependent data. Time-dependent problems in imaging and parameter identification, 165–190 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57784-1 6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57784-1 2021

  8. [7]

    Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 40(1), 183–204 (2017) https:// doi.org/10.1002/mma.3979

    Seydel, J., Schuster, T.: On the linearization of identifying the stored energy function of a hyperelastic material from full knowledge of the displacement field. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 40(1), 183–204 (2017) https:// doi.org/10.1002/mma.3979

    doi:10.1002/mma.3979 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Inverse Problems 33(12), 124004 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/aa8d91

    Seydel, J., Schuster, T.: Identifying the stored energy of a hyperelastic structure by using an attenuated Landweber method. Inverse Problems 33(12), 124004 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/aa8d91

    2017 doi

  2. [9]

    Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering 25(1), 2–26 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1080/17415977.2015.1132713

    Lechzeiter, A., Schlasche, J.W.: Identifying lam´ e parameters from time-dependent elastic wave measurements. Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering 25(1), 2–26 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1080/17415977.2015.1132713

    2017

  3. [10]

    Applied Mathe- matical Sciences

    Isakov, V.: Inverse Problems for Partial Differential Equations. Applied Mathe- matical Sciences. Springer, New York (2017). https://books.google.de/books?id= lj02DgAAQBAJ

    2017

  4. [11]

    In: Sonnendr¨ ucker, E

    Kavian, O.: Lectures on parameter identification. In: Sonnendr¨ ucker, E. (ed.) Three Courses on Partial Differential Equations, pp. 125–162. De Gruyter, Berlin, New York (2003). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110200072.125

    2003 doi

  5. [12]

    Mathematics and Its Applications, vol

    Bakushinsky, A.B., Kokurin, M.Y.: Iterative Methods for Approximate Solu- tion of Inverse Problems. Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 577. Springer, Dordrecht (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3122-9

    2004 doi

  6. [13]

    Hanke, M., Neubauer, A., Scherzer, O.: A convergence analysis of the Landweber iteration for nonlinear ill-posed problems. Numer. Math. 72, 21–37 (1995) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s002110050158

    1995 doi

  7. [14]

    De Gruyter, Berlin, New York (2008)

    Kaltenbacher, B., Neubauer, A., Scherzer, O.: Iterative Regularization Methods for Nonlinear Ill-Posed Problems. De Gruyter, Berlin, New York (2008). https: //doi.org/10.1515/9783110208276

    2008 doi

  8. [15]

    Springer, New York (1996)

    Kirsch, A.: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Inverse Problems. Springer, New York (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63343-1

    1996 doi

  9. [16]

    Inverse Problems 40(8), 085008 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/ad5a35

    Burger, M., Schuster, T., Wald, A.: Ill-posedness of time-dependent inverse 34 problems in lebesgue-bochner spaces. Inverse Problems 40(8), 085008 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/ad5a35

    2024 doi

  10. [17]

    John Wiley & Sons, Washington, D.C

    Tikhonov, A.N., Arsenin, V.Y.: Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems. John Wiley & Sons, Washington, D.C. (1977). Translation editor: Fritz John

    1977

  11. [18]

    Pitman, Boston (1984)

    Groetsch, C.W.: The Theory of Tikhonov Regularization for Fredholm Equations of the First Kind. Pitman, Boston (1984)

    1984

  12. [19]

    Bakushinski ˘ ı, A.B.: On a convergence problem of the iterative-regularized Gauss- Newton method. Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i Mat. Fiz. 32(9), 1503–1509 (1992)

    1992

  13. [20]

    Inverse Problems 17(6), 1743–1763 (2001) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0266-5611/17/6/314

    Hohage, T.: On the numerical solution of a three-dimensional inverse medium scattering problem. Inverse Problems 17(6), 1743–1763 (2001) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0266-5611/17/6/314

    2001 doi

  14. [21]

    Langer, S., Hohage, T.: Convergence analysis of an inexact iteratively regularized Gauss-Newton method under general source conditions. J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 15(3), 311–327 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1515/jiip.2007.017

    2007 doi

  15. [22]

    Inverse Problems 28(1), 015012 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/28/1/015012

    St¨ uck, R., Burger, M., Hohage, T.: The iteratively regularized Gauss–Newton method with convex constraints and applications in 4pi microscopy. Inverse Problems 28(1), 015012 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/28/1/015012

    2012 doi

  16. [23]

    Numerische Mathematik 140, 449–478 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00211-018-0971-5

    Kaltenbacher, B., Souza, M.L.: Convergence and adaptive discretization of the IRGNM Tikhonov and the IRGNM Ivanov method under a tangential cone con- dition in Banach space. Numerische Mathematik 140, 449–478 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00211-018-0971-5

    2018 doi

  17. [24]

    reduced formulation

    Kaltenbacher, B., Kirchner, A., Veljovi´ c, S.: Goal oriented adaptivity in the IRGNM for parameter identification in PDEs: I. reduced formulation. Inverse Problems 30(4), 045001 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/30/4/045001

    2014 doi

  18. [25]

    Haasdonk, B.: Chapter 2: Reduced Basis Methods for Parametrized PDEs—A Tutorial Introduction for Stationary and Instationary Problems, pp. 65–136. Soci- ety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA (2017). https: //doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974829.ch2

    2017 doi

  19. [26]

    Yue, Y., Meerbergen, K.: Accelerating optimization of parametric linear systems by model order reduction. SIAM J. Optim. 23(2), 1344–1370 (2013) https://doi. org/10.1137/120869171

    2013 doi

  20. [27]

    arXiv (2024) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.07015 35

    Banholzer, S., Beermann, D., Mechelli, L., Volkwein, S.: POD suboptimal con- trol of evolution problems: theory and applications (Lecture notes). arXiv (2024) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.07015 35

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    Acta Numer

    Ghattas, O., Willcox, K.: Learning physics-based models from data: perspectives from inverse problems and model reduction. Acta Numer. 30, 445–554 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492921000064

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    Wald, A., Schuster, T.: Sequential subspace optimization for nonlinear inverse problems (2017) https://doi.org/10.1515/jiip-2016-0014

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    Inverse Problems 34(8), 085008–27 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/aac8f3

    Wald, A.: A fast subspace optimization method for nonlinear inverse problems in Banach spaces with an application in parameter identification. Inverse Problems 34(8), 085008–27 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/aac8f3

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    Inverse Problems 32(3), 035001 (2016) https:// doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/32/3/035001

    Garmatter, D., Haasdonk, B., Harrach, B.: A reduced basis Landweber method for nonlinear inverse problems. Inverse Problems 32(3), 035001 (2016) https:// doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/32/3/035001

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA (2017)

    Benner, P., Ohlberger, M., Cohen, A., Willcox, K.: Model Reduction and Approxi- mation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA (2017). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974829

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    (eds.): Model Reduction of Parametrized Systems

    Benner, P., Ohlberger, M., Patera, A., Rozza, G., Urban, K. (eds.): Model Reduction of Parametrized Systems. MS&A. Modeling, Simulation and Applica- tions, vol. 17, p. 504. Springer, Cham, Germany (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-58786-8 . Selected papers from the 3r...

    2017

  27. [37]

    Grepl, M.A., K¨ archer, M.: Reduced basis a posteriori error bounds for parametrized linear-quadratic elliptic optimal control problems. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 349(15-16), 873–877 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crma. 2011.07.010 36

    2011 doi

  28. [38]

    Negri, F., Rozza, G., Manzoni, A., Quateroni, A.: Reduced basis method for parametrized elliptic optimal control problems. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 35(5), 2316–2340 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1137/120894737

    2013 doi

  29. [39]

    In: Model Order Reduction and Applications

    Hinze, M.: Model order reduction for optimal control problems. In: Model Order Reduction and Applications. Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 2328, pp. 125–199. Springer, Cham, Germany ([2023] ©2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-29563-8 3

    2023

  30. [40]

    Inverse Problems 41(5), 055015–24 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/add17d

    Hu, X., Zhang, Y., Zhu, S.: Efficient identification of geometric inverse sources of parabolic problems by model order reduction. Inverse Problems 41(5), 055015–24 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/add17d

    2025 doi

  31. [41]

    Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 42(2), 277–302 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an: 2008001

    Haasdonk, B., Ohlberger, M.: Reduced basis method for finite volume approx- imations of parametrized linear evolution equations. Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 42(2), 277–302 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an: 2008001

    2008 doi

  32. [42]

    ESAIM Math

    Haasdonk, B.: Convergence rates of the POD-greedy method. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 47(3), 859–873 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an/ 2012045

    2013 doi

  33. [43]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 40(5), 3267–3292 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1085413

    Himpe, C., Leibner, T., Rave, S.: Hierarchical approximate proper orthogonal decomposition. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 40(5), 3267–3292 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1085413

    2018 doi

  34. [45]

    Lieberman, C., Willcox, K., Ghattas, O.: Parameter and state model reduction for large-scale statistical inverse problems. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 32(5), 2523–2542 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1137/090775622

    2010 doi

  35. [46]

    Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 843869–13 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/843869

    Himpe, C., Ohlberger, M.: Cross-gramian-based combined state and parameter reduction for large-scale control systems. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 843869–13 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/843869

    2014 doi

  36. [47]

    Himpe, C., Ohlberger, M.: Data-driven combined state and parameter reduction for inverse problems. Adv. Comput. Math. 41(5), 1343–1364 (2015) https://doi. org/10.1007/s10444-015-9420-5

    2015 doi

  37. [48]

    Technical report, Technical Report 2000-25, ICASE (2000)

    Arian, E., Fahl, M., Sachs, E.W.: Trust-region proper orthogonal decomposition for flow control. Technical report, Technical Report 2000-25, ICASE (2000). https: //apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA377382.pdf 37

    2000

  38. [49]

    Journal of Com- putational Physics 227, 7813–7840 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2008.04

    Bergmann, M., Cordier, L.: Optimal control of the cylinder wake in the laminar regime by trust-region methods and POD reduced-order models. Journal of Com- putational Physics 227, 7813–7840 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2008.04. 034

    2008 doi

  39. [50]

    Optimization and Engineering 14, 3–35 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-011-9164-0

    Agarwal, A., Biegler, L.T.: A trust-region framework for constrained optimization using reduced order modeling. Optimization and Engineering 14, 3–35 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-011-9164-0

    2013 doi

  40. [51]

    PAMM 18(1), 201800453 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1002/pamm.201800453

    Alff, J.O., Gr¨ aßle, C., Hinze, M.: Adaptive trust-region POD for optimal control of the Cahn-Hilliard equation. PAMM 18(1), 201800453 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1002/pamm.201800453

    2018 doi

  41. [52]

    Konstanzer Schriften in Mathematik No

    Rogg, S., Trenz, S., Volkwein, S.: Trust-region POD using a-posteriori error esti- mation for semilinear parabolic optimal control problems. Konstanzer Schriften in Mathematik No. 359 (359) (2017)

    2017

  42. [53]

    Qian, E., Grepl, M., Veroy, K., Willcox, K.: A certified trust region reduced basis approach to PDE-constrained optimization. SIAM J. Sci. Comput.39(5), 434–460 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1137/16M108198

    2017 doi

  43. [54]

    arXiv (2025) https://doi

    Ullmann, S., Ehring, T., Herkert, R., Haasdonk, B.: A trust-region framework for optimization using Hermite kernel surrogate models. arXiv (2025) https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.01729

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [56]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38, 194–216 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1026614

    Milk, R., Rave, S., Schindler, F.: pyMOR – Generic algorithms and interfaces for model order reduction. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38, 194–216 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1026614

    2016 doi

  45. [57]

    Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering

    Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: Numerical Optimization, 2nd edn. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, New York (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-40065-5

    2006 doi

  46. [58]

    Ern, A., Guermond, J.-L.: Theory and Practice of Finite Elements vol. 159. Springer, New York, NY (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4355-5

    2004 doi

  47. [59]

    arXiv (2023) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv

    Azmi, B., Bernreuther, M.: On the nonmonotone linesearch for a class of infinite- dimensional nonsmooth problems. arXiv (2023) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2303.01878

    2023 doi arXiv

  48. [60]

    Mathematical and Computational Applications 27(3), 39 (2022) https://doi.org/ 38 10.3390/mca27030039

    Banholzer, S., Mechelli, L., Volkwein, S.: A trust region reduced basis Pascoletti- Serafini algorithm for multi-objective PDE-constrained parameter optimization. Mathematical and Computational Applications 27(3), 39 (2022) https://doi.org/ 38 10.3390/mca27030039

    2022 doi

  49. [61]

    arXiv (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2503.21252

    Klein, B., Ohlberger, M.: Multi-fidelity learning of reduced order models for parabolic PDE constrained optimization. arXiv (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2503.21252

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [62]

    arXiv (2022) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv

    Keil, T.: Adaptive reduced basis methods for multiscale problems and large-scale PDE-constrained optimization. arXiv (2022) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2211.09607

    2022 doi arXiv

  51. [63]

    Pure and Applied Functional Analysis 7, 1561–1596 (2022)

    Banholzer, S., Keil, T., Mechelli, L., Ohlberger, M., Schindler, F., Volkwein, S.: An adaptive projected Newton non-conforming dual approach for trust-region reduced basis approximation of PDE-constrained parameter optimization. Pure and Applied Functional Analysis 7, 1561–1596 (2022)

    2022

  52. [64]

    (eds.) Model Reduction via Proper Orthogonal Decomposition, pp

    Pinnau, R.: In: Schilders, W.H.A., Vorst, H.A., Rommes, J. (eds.) Model Reduction via Proper Orthogonal Decomposition, pp. 95–109. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78841-6 5

    2008 doi

  53. [65]

    arXiv (2014) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1407.8005 39 A Additional figures for Run 1 q(0) r q(1) r q(2) r q(3) r q(4) r q(5) r q(6) r 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Fig

    Buhr, A., Engwer, C., Ohlberger, M., Rave, S.: A numerically stable a posteri- ori error estimator for reduced basis approximations of elliptic equations. arXiv (2014) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1407.8005 39 A Additional figures for Run 1 q(0) r q(1) r q(2) r q(3) r q(4) r...

    2014 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.