Parameter Robustness in Data-Driven Estimation of Dynamical Systems

Ayush Pandey

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Parameter Robustness in Data-Driven Estimation of Dynamical Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The sensitivity of estimation error to each parameter is bounded by an explicit formula, so robustness can be checked without simulation.

desk verdict The paper has a clean framework and a correct unforced special case, but the headline forced-input bound fails on a simple input-scaling argument and the proof mixes norms and horizons. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06534 v1 pith:4DNYG54N submitted 2025-09-08 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC

Ayush Pandey This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SYmath.OC MSC 93B3593C0593B30

keywords parametricrobustnesssensitivityanalysisdata-drivenestimationlineardynamicalsystemsparameteruncertaintyerrormatrixexponentialderivativeboundaugmentedsystem

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 a practical guarantee: for a parametrized linear dynamical system with control inputs, the sensitivity of the estimation error to each parameter can be bounded by a closed-form expression, so an engineer can judge how robust an estimator is without simulating trajectories. The bound is stated as Theorem 1 and separates three sources of sensitivity — initial conditions, forced inputs, and their interaction — into three terms with explicit constants K1, K2, K3 that depend on the augmented system, its log-norm decay rate, and the time horizon. If the bound is correct, it gives data-driven estimation a parameter-specific robustness metric: rather than asking whether an estimator works on average, one can ask which parameters the estimate is fragile to. The paper also handles parameter-dependent initial conditions via a Lyapunov/observability-Gramian bound (Theorem 2), and checks the unforced-input special case against a known model-reduction robustness result.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the augmented error system, x̄ = [x; x̃], Ā = diag(A, Ã), B̄ = [B; B̃], C̄ = C − C̃, whose output ȳ is exactly the estimation error. The proof machinery is a pair of derivative bounds for matrix exponentials: Lemma 2 bounds ‖∂e^{At}/∂θ_i‖ by ‖∂A/∂θ_i‖ t e^{-|µ|t} for Hurwitz A, and Lemma 3 bounds the negative-time exponential e^{-As} similarly. These turn the sensitivity integral into moments of t against decaying exponentials, which produce the explicit constants 1/(4|µ|³), 2/|µ|⁵, and 2/|µ|, and hence K1, K2, K3. The log-norm µ = λmax(Ā+Āᵀ)/2 encodes the stability margin, so the constants reflect how quickly the augmented error system forgets both initial conditi

What would settle it

Pick a Hurwitz but poorly conditioned A(θ), compute ||∂e^{At}/∂θ|| numerically by finite differences over a grid of t up to horizon N, and check whether it ever exceeds ||∂A/∂θ|| t e^{-|mu|t}. Alternatively, simulate the mass-spring-damper LPV example with the paper's parameters, compute ∂ȳ/∂θ₁ by finite differences, and compare its squared 2-norm to the Theorem 1 bound; any violation of the bound at a single t would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for the augmented error system ẋ̄ = Āx̄ + B̄u, ȳ = C̄x̄ with Ā block diagonal containing A and the estimated Ã, the squared 2-norm of the sensitivity ∂ȳ/∂θ_i is bounded by K1 ‖∂Ā/∂θ_i‖² + K2 ‖∂Ā/∂θ_i‖³ ‖B̄u‖∞ + K3 N² ‖∂Ā/∂θ_i‖² ‖B̄u‖∞, with K1, K2, K3 given explicitly in terms of the augmented output matrix, initial condition, log-norm, and horizon. The bound is assembled from the convolution solution of the augmented system; the key move is to pass derivatives through the matrix exponential and apply Lemmas 2 and 3, which bound ‖∂e^{At}/∂θ_i‖ ≤ ‖∂A/∂θ_i‖ t e^{-|µ|t} (and its negative-time analogue) for Hurwitz A. Each of the four products from expanding the s

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Lemma 2's uniform bound ||∂e^{At}/∂θ_i|| ≤ ||∂A/∂θ_i|| t e^{-|mu|t} holds for every matrix argument and every time in the convolution integrals, including negative-time exponentials; the K1, K2, K3 constants come from integrating that decay, so a counterexample to the bound would break the formula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Estimator selection can be made parameter-aware: for each θ_i, compute the Theorem 1 bound on the augmented system and rank candidate estimators on sensitivity to that parameter.
The robustness metric R can be restricted to a subset of physically relevant parameters, isolating, say, motor constants or aerodynamic coefficients in a rotor system while ignoring others.
The unforced-input special case reproduces the known model-reduction robustness bound, and the zero-initial-condition case gives K3N²‖∂Ā/∂θ_i‖²‖B̄u‖∞; both validate the theorem as an extension rather than a separate result.
For parameter-dependent initial conditions, Theorem 2 gives a bound through the maximum eigenvalue of the observability Gramian P, again computable without trajectory simulation.
The LPV mass-spring-damper example indicates the new bound is tighter than a finite-horizon observability-Gramian bound, making it usable as a worst-case guarantee rather than merely a formal one.

Reading between the lines

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

The proof is written for parameter dependence in A and x(0); the same convolution expansion with ∂B̄/∂θ_i and ∂C̄/∂θ_i terms would extend Theorem 1 to fully parameter-dependent B and C, an extension the paper leaves implicit.
Because K1 and K2 scale as 1/|µ|³ and 1/|µ|⁵, near-marginal systems will make the bound conservative; a finite-horizon analogue might trade tightness for practical usability.
One can test the metric's utility directly: on a benchmark parameterized system, compare the Theorem 1 sensitivity ranking across estimators with rankings from finite-difference ground truth; the paper motivates but does not run that benchmark.
Reading R as a cost function opens a design loop — choose estimated parameters to maximize R with respect to nuisance parameters while keeping sensitivity to parameters of interest high; the paper names this direction as future work.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper up front. One: the unforced (u=0) case is sound and matches the author's own earlier model-reduction sensitivity bound, which is a good sanity check. Two: the forced-input theorem, which is the advertised contribution, cannot be true as stated. The LHS is the squared L2 norm of the output sensitivity; scaling the input u by c scales the forced response linearly, so the LHS grows like c^2. The RHS has terms linear in ||B̄u||_∞, with constants independent of u, so for large c the inequality fails. That is decisive.

What is actually new? The extension of the sensitivity metric from model reduction to data-driven estimation with control inputs, plus the augmented-system formulation and the LPV example with code. The metric itself is sensible, and the comparison against a Gramian-based baseline is a reasonable idea. The u=0 case being a clean reduction to prior work is a legitimate validation of that special case.

The soft spots beyond the scaling flaw are several. In the proof, the cross-term a1b2 is written as a product of two different convolution integrals and then declared equal to the squared norm of one of them—that step hides the quadratic input dependence. The proof also integrates the LHS to infinity while the bound introduces a finite horizon N in K3; those two things are never reconciled. Lemma 2 and 3 are individually fine, but applying them inside convolution integrals over an infinite horizon produces terms like ∫ t e^{|µ|t} dt that diverge unless you already assumed a finite horizon, which the theorem does not. So the issue is not just a loose constant; the derivation does not support the stated inequality.

Who gets value from this? Someone building parameter-specific robustness tools for LPV or grey-box estimation might find the augmented-system setup and the unforced bound useful. But the main result as written is not usable, and the paper would need substantial rework—either restrict the claims to the unforced case or fix the forced-input analysis with the correct scaling and a genuinely finite-horizon bound.

For peer review: I would send it to a referee rather than desk-reject, because the flaw is instructive and the framework is salvageable, but I would expect the referee to come back with the same scaling objection. It is not a publishable paper in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sensitivity-based robustness metric for the estimation error of parameterized linear dynamical systems with control inputs. The central object is the augmented error system of Eqs. (5)-(7), and the robustness metric R in Eqs. (4)/(9) is defined through the normalized sensitivity of the estimation error. The main theoretical contribution is Theorem 1 (Eq. (13)), which claims a trajectory-free upper bound on the squared norm of the sensitivity ∂ȳ/∂θ_i in terms of ‖∂Ā/∂θ_i‖, the input norm ‖B̄u‖∞, and constants K1,K2,K3 involving the initial condition, the log-norm of Ā, C̄, and a horizon N. Theorem 2 handles parameter-dependent initial conditions. The paper also includes an LPV mass-spring-damper example and a comparison with a Gramian-based bound. The u=0 special case (Eq. (20)) reproduces a bound from the author's prior model-reduction work.

Significance. If Theorem 1 were correct, it would give a useful, easily computable certificate of parametric robustness for data-driven estimators, avoiding repeated simulation. A notable strength is the explicit claim of a closed-form bound and the availability of code. The u=0 reduction to existing results provides a partial consistency check. However, the forced-input extension, which is the paper's main novelty, is unsound: the claimed inequality has the wrong scaling in input amplitude, and the quantity bounded in the proof is an L2 norm that is not connected to the pointwise robustness metric R defined in Section II. Since these are foundational to the paper's central claim, the contribution is not established.

major comments (4)

[Section IV.A, Theorem 1, Eq. (13)] The LHS of Eq. (13) is defined in the proof as ∫_0^∞ ‖∂ȳ/∂θ_i(t)‖^2 dt, i.e., the squared L2 norm of the sensitivity. Differentiating Eq. (14) shows u ↦ ∂ȳ/∂θ_i is affine, with forced-response part linear in u. Replacing u by c u scales the forced part of the LHS by c^2, while the RHS's K2 and K3 terms scale only by c. For any input direction with nonzero forced sensitivity, the RHS/LHS ratio tends to zero as c→∞, so Eq. (13) cannot hold. The same defect appears in Eq. (15), where a1b2 is a squared norm but is bounded by a term linear in ‖B̄u‖∞. This is not a question of conservatism; it is a scaling contradiction.
[Section II.B and Section IV.A] The metric R in Eqs. (4) and (9) is defined pointwise in time through the ratio ‖∂err/∂θ_i(t)‖ / ‖err(t)‖. Theorem 1 instead bounds the time-integrated quantity ∫_0^∞ ‖∂ȳ/∂θ_i(t)‖^2 dt. The paper does not prove that this L2 bound controls the pointwise ratios appearing in R, nor does it define the norm in Eq. (13) consistently with the pointwise norm used in the metric. Thus, even setting aside the scaling issue, the theorem does not establish the advertised robustness metric.
[Section IV.A, Eqs. (13)-(15)] The LHS of Eq. (13) is an integral over [0,∞), while K3 contains N^2, where N is described as the maximum time for which inputs are applied. If a finite horizon was intended, the theorem should state the LHS as ‖∂ȳ/∂θ_i‖_{2,[0,N]}^2 and all intermediate bounds (e.g., Eq. (15)) should be derived on [0,N]; if an infinite horizon was intended, the N^2 term is undefined. The proof of Eq. (15) integrates to ∞ and then introduces N ad hoc, so the theorem's time horizon is not well defined.
[Appendix A, a2b2 bound] The derivation of the a2b2 term replaces the inner integral ∫_0^t C̄ ∂e^{Ā(t-τ)}/∂θ_i B̄u(τ)dτ by ∫_0^t ∂e^{-Āτ}/∂θ_i B̄u(τ)dτ. These are not equal: ∂e^{A(t-τ)}/∂θ_i is not the derivative of e^{-Aτ}. The subsequent use of Lemma 3 is therefore applied to a different integral, and the K2 contribution in Eq. (17) is not established. A demonstration that the replacement is a valid conservative bound is needed.

minor comments (4)

[Section II.B, Eq. (3)] The typesetting of d_R is garbled; the placement of absolute-value bars and the division structure are unclear. Please rewrite the definition with clear parentheses.
[Section II.A] The statement that D=0 is 'without loss of generality' needs a concrete explanation of how the D term is incorporated. As written, Theorems 1 and 2 assume D=0, but the augmented system definition (6) includes D̄.
[Section III, Lemma 1] Lemma 1 states a bound for e^{At} without specifying the time domain. Lemma 3 applies the same type of estimate to negative-time arguments; a two-sided log-norm bound and its domain of validity should be stated explicitly.
[Section V, Figures 1-2] The figures lack axis labels and units. The statement that the proposed bound is 'closer to true' would be easier to assess if the ground-truth norm, the baseline Gramian norm, and the time horizon were clearly specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is derived from standard convolution identities and decay bounds, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Theorem 1, is obtained by writing the augmented output as a convolution expression (eq. 14), differentiating with respect to a parameter, expanding the product into four terms, and bounding each with Lemma 2 / Lemma 3 plus the logarithmic-norm decay estimate of Lemma 1. These lemmas are proved from the standard integral representation of the derivative of a matrix exponential, with no hidden use of the theorem being proved. The robustness metric in eqs. (3)-(4) is a definition adapted from the author's prior work [21] and is not used as an input to force the bound; it merely names the quantity that the theorem bounds. The self-citations to [21] and [26] appear in the special-case validation (eqs. 19-21) and in Theorem 2's proof method, but the forced-input bound does not depend on those results for its derivation. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The u=0 and x(0)=0 special cases are consistency checks, not load-bearing assumptions. Any mathematical concerns about Lemma 2/3 or the scaling of the bound are correctness issues, not circularity: the derivation is self-contained and the claimed inequality is not equivalent by definition to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The principal uncharged inputs from the literature are the standard linear-system solution formulas, the log-norm bound, and the observability Gramian. The main fragile input is the assumed uniform validity of the derivative-of-matrix-exponential bounds inside the convolution argument, which the proof does not establish.

free parameters (1)

N (finite time horizon) = user-specified, not fixed in the paper
Appears as N and N^2 in Theorem 1 and Appendix B; the conservatism of the bound depends on this chosen horizon, but no selection rule is given.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Both true and estimated systems are exponentially stable and ISS stable.
Assumptions section; needed for bounded estimation error and for the log-norm decay bound on e^{At}.
domain assumption The estimated system has the same parameterized structure as the true system.
Section II.A; off-the-shelf DMD/SINDy/neural estimators do not produce such structured parameterized models, so the metric's applicability is narrower than the abstract suggests.
domain assumption D = 0 without loss of generality.
Section III Assumptions; the Dbar term is deferred rather than included in Theorem 1's bound.
standard math Lemma 1 (log-norm bound): for Hurwitz A, ||e^{At}|| <= e^{-|mu|t}.
Lemma 1, cited to [22],[23]; used as the decay engine for all subsequent bounds.
ad hoc to paper Lemma 2/3 derivative bounds apply uniformly to the matrix exponentials inside the convolution integrals, including e^{-A tau}.
The proof applies ||partial e^{At}/partial theta|| <= ||partial A/partial theta|| t e^{-|mu|t} to integrands with time arguments t-tau and -tau without proving uniformity or commutativity conditions; this is the fragile step that the K1,K2,K3 constants rest on.
domain assumption The augmented system (Abar,Cbar) is observable in Theorem 2.
Theorem 2 requires the observability Gramian solving Abar^T P + P Abar = -Cbar^T Cbar; the statement only says 'observable, linear dynamical system'.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parameter Robustness in Data-Driven Estimation of Dynamical Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DNYG54N

@misc{pith2026250906534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parameter Robustness in Data-Driven Estimation of Dynamical Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DNYG54N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06534}
}

read the original abstract

We study the robustness of system estimation to parametric perturbations in system dynamics and initial conditions. We define the problem of sensitivity-based parametric uncertainty quantification in dynamical system estimation. The main contribution of this paper is the development of a novel robustness metric for estimation of parametrized linear dynamical systems with and without control actions. For the computation of this metric, we delineate the uncertainty contributions arising from control actions, system dynamics, and initial conditions. Furthermore, to validate our theoretical findings, we establish connections between these new results and the existing literature on the robustness of model reduction. This work provides guidance for selecting estimation methods based on tolerable levels of parametric uncertainty and paves the way for new cost functions in data-driven estimation that reward sensitivity to a desired subset of parameters while penalizing others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06534 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Sensitivity of estimation error in four different scenarios for a linear parameter varying A. Note that a lower value of the upper bound is less conservative, which corresponds to a higher R. V. APPLICATION EXAMPLE: A 2D LPV SYSTEM Now we will apply the methodology outlined above to compute the robustness upper bound for estimation of parametric linear dynamical systems. By computing the upper bound, we aim to show… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Sensitivity of estimation error when the initial conditions are parameter dependent (bound using Theorem 2). addition to affine, on θ1, (4) Dependence on two parameters θ1 and θ2, along with a joint term θ1θ2. Details of the four scenarios are available in the associated paper code and the results are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and exper- imental data,

P. J. Schmid, “Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and exper- imental data,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 656, pp. 5–28, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

Dynamic mode decomposition with control,

J. L. Proctor, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Dynamic mode decomposition with control,”SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 142–161, 2016

2016
[3]

Characterizing and correcting for the effect of sensor noise in the dynamic mode decomposition,

S. T. Dawson, M. S. Hemati, M. O. Williams, and C. W. Rowley, “Characterizing and correcting for the effect of sensor noise in the dynamic mode decomposition,”Experiments in Fluids, vol. 57, pp. 1–19, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

PyDMD: Python dynamic mode decomposition,

N. Demo, M. Tezzele, and G. Rozza, “PyDMD: Python dynamic mode decomposition,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 3, no. 22, p. 530, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Pydmd: A python package for robust dynamic mode decomposition,

S. M. Ichinaga, F. Andreuzzi, N. Demo, M. Tezzele, K. Lapo, G. Rozza, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Pydmd: A python package for robust dynamic mode decomposition,”Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research, vol. 25, no. 417, pp. 1–9, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,

S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, “Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 15, pp. 3932–3937, 2016

2016
[7]

Modern koopman theory for dynamical systems,

S. L. Brunton, M. Budi ˇsi´c, E. Kaiser, and J. N. Kutz, “Modern koopman theory for dynamical systems,”arXiv:2102.12086, 2021

arXiv 2021
[8]

Combining model-based and data-driven models: an application to synthetic biology resource competition,

A. Darabi, Z. An, M. A. Al-Radhawi, W. Cho, M. Siami, and E. D. Sontag, “Combining model-based and data-driven models: an application to synthetic biology resource competition,”bioRxiv, pp. 2025–03, 2025

work page 2025

Show all 26 references

[9]

Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations,

K. Champion, B. Lusch, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, “Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 45, pp. 22 445–22 451, 2019

2019
[10]

Robot model identification and learning: A modern perspective,

T. Lee, J. Kwon, P. M. Wensing, and F. C. Park, “Robot model identification and learning: A modern perspective,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 7, 2024

2024
[11]

Guarantees for data- driven control of nonlinear systems using semidefinite programming: A survey,

T. Martin, T. B. Sch ¨on, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Guarantees for data- driven control of nonlinear systems using semidefinite programming: A survey,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 56, p. 100911, 2023

2023
[12]

Pacti: Assume-guarantee contracts for efficient compositional analysis and design,

I. Incer, A. Badithela, J. B. Graebener, P. Mallozzi, A. Pandey, N. Rouquette, S.-J. Yu, A. Benveniste, B. Caillaud, R. M. Murray et al., “Pacti: Assume-guarantee contracts for efficient compositional analysis and design,”ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 9, no....

2025
[13]

Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,

T. G. Molnar, R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, W. Ubellacker, and A. D. Ames, “Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 944–951, 2021

2021
[14]

Conbat: Control barrier transformer for safe robot learning from demon- strations,

Y . Meng, S. Vemprela, R. Bonatti, C. Fan, and A. Kapoor, “Conbat: Control barrier transformer for safe robot learning from demon- strations,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 12 857–12 864

2024
[15]

Guar- antees for nonlinear representation learning: non-identical covariates, dependent data, fewer samples,

T. T. Zhang, B. D. Lee, I. Ziemann, G. J. Pappas, and N. Matni, “Guar- antees for nonlinear representation learning: non-identical covariates, dependent data, fewer samples,”arXiv:2410.11227, 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

J. C. Doyle, B. A. Francis, and A. R. Tannenbaum,Feedback Control Theory. Courier Corporation, 2013

2013
[17]

Direct data-driven vibration control for adaptive optics,

V . Gupta, A. Karimi, F. Wildi, and J.-P. V ´eran, “Direct data-driven vibration control for adaptive optics,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 8521–8526

2023
[18]

Data-driven fixed-structure frequency-basedH 2 andH ∞ controller design,

P. L. Schuchert, V . Gupta, and A. Karimi, “Data-driven fixed-structure frequency-basedH 2 andH ∞ controller design,”Automatica, vol. 160, p. 110052, 2024

2024
[19]

Physics-informed dynamic mode decomposition,

P. J. Baddoo, B. Herrmann, B. J. McKeon, J. Nathan Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, “Physics-informed dynamic mode decomposition,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A, vol. 479, no. 2271, p. 20220576, 2023

2023
[20]

Structure-preserving sparse identifica- tion of nonlinear dynamics for data-driven modeling,

K. Lee, N. Trask, and P. Stinis, “Structure-preserving sparse identifica- tion of nonlinear dynamics for data-driven modeling,” inMathematical and Scientific Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 65–80

2022
[21]

Robustness guarantees for structured model reduction of dynamical systems with applications to biomolec- ular models,

A. Pandey and R. M. Murray, “Robustness guarantees for structured model reduction of dynamical systems with applications to biomolec- ular models,”International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 5058–5086, 2023

2023
[22]

G. dahlquist, stability and error bounds in the numerical integration of ordinary differential equations. 85 s. stockholm 1959. k. tekniska h ¨ogskolans handlingar,

J. Schmidt, “G. dahlquist, stability and error bounds in the numerical integration of ordinary differential equations. 85 s. stockholm 1959. k. tekniska h ¨ogskolans handlingar,” 1961

1959
[23]

On logarithmic norms,

T. Str ¨om, “On logarithmic norms,”SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 741–753, 1975

1975
[24]

K. J. ˚Astr¨om and R. Murray,Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press, 2021

2021
[25]

P. J. Antsaklis and A. N. Michel,Linear Systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

2006
[26]

Robustness guarantees for structured model reduction of dynamical systems,

A. Pandey and R. M. Murray, “Robustness guarantees for structured model reduction of dynamical systems,” in2021 60th IEEE Confer- ence on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6920–6927. APPENDIXA For thea 2b2 term in the proof of Theorem 1, we can obtain the bound as fo...

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and exper- imental data,

P. J. Schmid, “Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and exper- imental data,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 656, pp. 5–28, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Dynamic mode decomposition with control,

J. L. Proctor, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Dynamic mode decomposition with control,”SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 142–161, 2016

2016

[3] [3]

Characterizing and correcting for the effect of sensor noise in the dynamic mode decomposition,

S. T. Dawson, M. S. Hemati, M. O. Williams, and C. W. Rowley, “Characterizing and correcting for the effect of sensor noise in the dynamic mode decomposition,”Experiments in Fluids, vol. 57, pp. 1–19, 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

PyDMD: Python dynamic mode decomposition,

N. Demo, M. Tezzele, and G. Rozza, “PyDMD: Python dynamic mode decomposition,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 3, no. 22, p. 530, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Pydmd: A python package for robust dynamic mode decomposition,

S. M. Ichinaga, F. Andreuzzi, N. Demo, M. Tezzele, K. Lapo, G. Rozza, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Pydmd: A python package for robust dynamic mode decomposition,”Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research, vol. 25, no. 417, pp. 1–9, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,

S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, “Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 15, pp. 3932–3937, 2016

2016

[7] [7]

Modern koopman theory for dynamical systems,

S. L. Brunton, M. Budi ˇsi´c, E. Kaiser, and J. N. Kutz, “Modern koopman theory for dynamical systems,”arXiv:2102.12086, 2021

arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Combining model-based and data-driven models: an application to synthetic biology resource competition,

A. Darabi, Z. An, M. A. Al-Radhawi, W. Cho, M. Siami, and E. D. Sontag, “Combining model-based and data-driven models: an application to synthetic biology resource competition,”bioRxiv, pp. 2025–03, 2025

work page 2025