Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 63 references

Convolutional Symmetric AutoEncoders: enhancing latent stability via differential geometry

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-07-02 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Symmetric convolutional autoencoders preserve manifold parametrization to deliver more accurate latent trajectories in reduced-order PDE models.

desk verdict The paper extends representation-consistent AEs to convolutional layers for ROMs and reports gains on three 1D PDEs, but the abstract gives no derivation or check that the conv symmetry actually preserves the manifold properties from the fully-connected case. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.00669 v1 pith:MSSGFOER submitted 2026-07-01 math.NA cs.NAstat.ML

G. Li Causi , N.Tonicello , L. Magri , G. Rozza This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAstat.ML
keywords convolutionalautoencodersreducedordermodelingsymmetricparametricPDEsmanifoldlearninglatentspacestability
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 extends the idea of representation-consistent autoencoders to convolutional layers by introducing symmetric Convolutional AutoEncoders. These are designed to embody the primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings that standard autoencoders often miss despite minimizing reconstruction error. Tested within a reduced-order modeling framework on the Linear Advection, Viscous Burger, and Kuramoto Sivashinsky equations, the symmetric approach produces more accurate latent trajectories, lower reconstruction errors, and greater robustness than classical CAEs.

What carries the argument

The symmetric Convolutional AutoEncoder architecture that extends representation consistency from fully connected layers to convolutional layers to preserve essential manifold parametrization properties.

What would settle it

Numerical experiments on the same test cases where the symmetric CAE does not show lower reconstruction errors or more accurate latent trajectories than the classical CAE.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a novel class of symmetric Convolutional AutoEncoders, by embodying the primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings, when integrated into a ROM framework, demonstrates significantly improved predictive capabilities, with numerical results on three one-dimensional PDE test cases showing consistently more accurate latent trajectories, lower reconstruction errors, and enhanced model robustness.

Load-bearing premise

Extending representation consistency from fully connected to convolutional layers will automatically preserve the essential manifold parametrization properties required for stable and accurate ROMs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ROMs using symmetric CAEs achieve higher accuracy in latent space predictions for parametric PDEs.
  • The symmetric design leads to lower reconstruction errors compared to standard CAEs.
  • Model robustness is enhanced through the symmetric approach across the tested equations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method could extend to multi-dimensional problems or other network architectures for broader applicability in scientific computing.
  • Integration with other ROM techniques might further stabilize predictions for slowly decaying Kolmogorov n-width problems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes symmetric Convolutional AutoEncoders (CAEs) that extend representation consistency from fully connected layers (as in prior self-cited works) to convolutional layers, with the aim of preserving primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings for use in Reduced-Order Modeling (ROM) of parametric PDEs. It evaluates the approach against classical CAEs on three 1D test cases (Linear Advection, Viscous Burgers, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky), claiming more accurate latent trajectories, lower reconstruction errors, and improved robustness.

Significance. If the convolutional symmetry is shown to preserve the required manifold parametrization properties and the performance gains are reproducible with proper controls, the work could strengthen nonlinear ROM techniques for problems where POD fails due to slowly decaying Kolmogorov n-widths. The differential-geometry motivation for latent stability is a coherent direction, but the absence of explicit verification for the convolutional case limits the current impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (architecture design paragraph): the central claim that the symmetric CAE 'embodies the primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings' for convolutional layers is not supported by any derivation, invariance check, or comparison showing that the convolutional symmetry satisfies the same consistency conditions with POD-like mappings as the fully connected case in the cited priors (arXiv:2307.15288v2, arXiv:2506.11641v1). Without this step the reported ROM gains cannot be attributed to the claimed geometric preservation.
  2. [Numerical results] Numerical results (comparison on three test cases): the abstract asserts that the symmetric approach 'consistently yields more accurate latent trajectories, lower reconstruction errors, and enhanced model robustness,' yet supplies no quantitative tables, error metrics, error bars, training details, or ablation studies. This prevents verification of the empirical claim and leaves open the possibility that gains arise from unstated architectural differences rather than the symmetry.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract references three specific 1D PDE test cases but does not indicate whether the reported improvements hold under variations in network depth, filter sizes, or training hyperparameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our contributions. We address each major comment below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (architecture design paragraph): the central claim that the symmetric CAE 'embodies the primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings' for convolutional layers is not supported by any derivation, invariance check, or comparison showing that the convolutional symmetry satisfies the same consistency conditions with POD-like mappings as the fully connected case in the cited priors (arXiv:2307.15288v2, arXiv:2506.11641v1). Without this step the reported ROM gains cannot be attributed to the claimed geometric preservation.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation and verification step for the convolutional extension would strengthen the link to the manifold parametrization properties established in the fully connected priors. The symmetric convolutional architecture is defined by enforcing weight symmetry across the encoder-decoder pair in a manner that mirrors the representation-consistency construction used for dense layers, thereby inheriting the same invariance under reparametrization. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that derives the consistency conditions for the convolutional case, includes an invariance check with respect to POD-like mappings, and provides a direct comparison to the cited works. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results] Numerical results (comparison on three test cases): the abstract asserts that the symmetric approach 'consistently yields more accurate latent trajectories, lower reconstruction errors, and enhanced model robustness,' yet supplies no quantitative tables, error metrics, error bars, training details, or ablation studies. This prevents verification of the empirical claim and leaves open the possibility that gains arise from unstated architectural differences rather than the symmetry.

    Authors: The manuscript presents comparative results on the three test cases through figures, but we acknowledge that tabulated quantitative metrics, error bars, training details, and ablation studies are not provided. In the revision we will add tables reporting reconstruction and latent-trajectory errors (with standard deviations over multiple random seeds), full hyperparameter specifications, and ablation experiments that isolate the effect of the symmetry constraint while keeping all other architectural choices identical. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Representation consistency for CAEs justified primarily via self-citation to prior fully-connected AE works

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "Recent works by arXiv:2307.15288v2 and arXiv:2506.11641v1 have tackled this challenge in fully connected AEs by proposing representation-consistent architectures, which preserve some of the properties belonging to POD. This study builds upon that concept by extending representation consistency for convolutional layers. We introduce a novel class of symmetric Convolutional AutoEncoders (CAEs) designed to embody the primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings."

    The assertion that the new CAE class embodies the required manifold parametrization properties is justified solely by building upon the two self-cited prior works; the abstract provides no separate derivation or verification that the convolutional symmetry satisfies the same consistency conditions shown for fully-connected layers in those citations.

full rationale

The paper's core architectural claim—that the proposed symmetric CAEs 'embody the primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings'—is introduced by direct reference to two prior arXiv preprints on fully-connected representation-consistent AEs. No independent derivation, invariance proof, or explicit check that convolutional symmetry inherits the same POD-like properties appears in the provided abstract or skeptic summary. Numerical gains on the three PDE cases are presented as validation, but the load-bearing geometric premise reduces to the cited prior results. This qualifies as moderate self-citation load-bearing without reducing the entire result to a fit or tautology, hence score 4 rather than 0 or 6+.

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

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the provided text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convolutional Symmetric AutoEncoders: enhancing latent stability via differential geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSSGFOER

@misc{pith2026260700669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convolutional Symmetric AutoEncoders: enhancing latent stability via differential geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSSGFOER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.00669}
}
abstract

Autoencoders (AEs) have emerged as powerful tools for non-linear dimensionality reduction, often surpassing traditional linear methods such as Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) in scenarios characterized by slowly decaying Kolmogorov $n$-widths. In the realm of Reduced-Order Modelling (ROM), these models are increasingly utilized to learn low-dimensional representations of solution manifolds associated with parametric Partial Differential Equations (PDEs). However, the high expressivity of AEs presents a challenge: although trained networks typically minimize reconstruction error, they often struggle to capture the essential properties necessary for building accurate and robust ROMs. Recent works by arXiv:2307.15288v2 and arXiv:2506.11641v1 have tackled this challenge in fully connected AEs by proposing representation-consistent architectures, which preserve some of the properties belonging to POD. This study builds upon that concept by extending representation consistency for convolutional layers. We introduce a novel class of symmetric Convolutional AutoEncoders (CAEs) designed to embody the primary properties of manifold parametrization mappings. When integrated into a ROM framework, this architecture demonstrates significantly improved predictive capabilities. Specifically, we compared the performance of the ROMs based on classical and symmetric CAEs on three one dimensional academic test cases, namely the Linear Advection, the Viscous Burger and the Kuramoto Sivashinsky equation. Numerical results demonstrate that our proposed symmetric approach consistently yields more accurate latent trajectories, lower reconstruction errors, and enhanced model robustness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00669 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The architecture consists of a nonlinear encoder (E) for dimensionality re￾duction and a symmetric decoder (D) for physical field reconstruction. Here, σ denotes a Bi-lipschitz nonlinear activation function applied element-wise between subsequent encoder layers, while σ −1 represents its inverse, utilized within the decoder layers to maintain the structural symmetry and bi-orthogonality of the mapping. with ni+1 ≤ n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rational activation function σα, its inverse σ −1 α , and Tanh activation func￾tion. The dashed gray line denotes the bisector of the first and third quadrants. 4. Data-driven approach Having introduced the enhanced version of convolutional autoencoders, which are distinguished by their advantageous parameterization properties, we can now employ them for manifold learning tasks to obtain a reduced representation of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sketch of the LF net. encoding mapping z = E(uh(t; µ)). The ground-truth latent velocity z˙ is derived by computing the differential of the encoder with respect to the high-fidelity state uh, evaluated at uh(t; µ), and applying to the high-fidelity dynamics fh as follows: z˙(z, t; µ) = dE (uh(t; µ)) · fh (t, uh(t; µ); µ). (14) The LF-net is trained by minimizing a Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss function, which penali… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solution of Linear Advection equation (left), Viscous Burgers (middle) and Kuramoto-Sivanshisky equation (right). 5.1. Linear Advection. The one-dimensional Linear Advection equation describes the transport of a passive scalar field within a spatial domain of size L ov…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative sum of the squared singular values of the snapshot matrix X = [u1,u2, . . . ,uNT ] ∈ R Nh×Nt the performance of the ROMs, we define the relative L2 reconstruction error as: ϵu(t) = ∥u(t) − u˜(t)∥L2 ∥u(0)∥L2 (22) where u˜(t) is the solution predicted by the R…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error ϵu defined in Equation 22 with an increasing number of modes l, as function of time t. −1 0 1 z ˆ 1 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 ˆz 2 −1 0 1 z ˆ 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized latent trajectory produced by 10 classic ROMs (left) and 10 symmetric ROMs (right) To facilitate a direct comparison between models trained independently, which may produce topolog￾ically equivalent but geometrically distinct latent representations, we map a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Statistical evolution of the high-dimensional reconstruction error (top) and latent space error (bottom) for the classic and symmetric ROMs. Results are computed over a 10-period time evolution across the test set. Solid lines represent the mean error, while the shaded…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the latent space trajectories (l = 2) for the parametric Vis￾cous Burgers’ equation using Classic CAE (left) and Symmetric CAE (right). Solid lines represent the projection of the high-fidelity solution through the encoder, z = E(uh), while dashed lines d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: First line: spatio-temporal solutions generated by the FOM (left), the clas￾sical ROM (center), and the symmetric ROM (right), using a viscosity value ν selected from the training set. Second line: point-wise error as functions of the spatial and tem￾poral coordinates…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: First line: spatio-temporal solutions generated by the FOM (left), the clas￾sical ROM (center), and the symmetric ROM (right), using a viscosity value ν selected from the test set. Second line: point-wise error as functions of the spatial and temporal coordinates for …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Error ϵ abs u defined as the time mean of Equation 26, for ROM based on standard CAE (left) and symmetric CAE (right). 6.3. Kuramoto-Sivashinsky Equation. The application of ROMs to chaotic systems, such as the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation, represents a significant c…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Reference solution of the KS equation (left), prediction of the ROM model based on classical CAE (center) and point-wise absolute error (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Reference solution of the KS equation (left), prediction of the ROM model based on symmetric CAE (center) and point-wise absolute error (right). models—utilizing both the classical CAE ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Lyapunov Spectrum predicted by the classical and symmetric ROMs and the reference spectrum obtained from the high fidelity simulation. Another useful analysis concerns the Lyapunov exponents, , which measure the sensitivity of a solution to initial conditions by quant…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Probability Density Function (PDF) of the kinetic energy. characterization of the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky system, we compute the averaged kinetic energy spectrum utilizing Welch’s method. This analysis allows for a precise evaluation of how the reduced-order models distr…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Kinetic energy spectrum against wave number for the FOM, classical and symmetric ROM systems. literature has introduced augmented neural network types, specifically autoencoders with fully connected layers, that address the representation consistency property. This pa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arbes, C

    F. Arbes, C. Greif, and K. Urban. The kolmogorov n-width for linear transport: exact representation and the influence of the data.Advances in Computational Mathematics, 51(2):13, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Babin, Anatoli and M

    V. Babin, Anatoli and M. I. Vishik.Attractors of evolution equations, volume 25. Elsevier, 1992

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    J. C. Baez, S. Huntsman, and C. Weis. The kuramoto-sivashinsky equation, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    SYMMETRIC CAES: ENHANCING LATENT STABILITY VIA DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 23

    S.Barwey, V.Shankar, V.Viswanathan, andR.Maulik.Multiscalegraphneuralnetworkautoencodersforinterpretable scientific machine learning.Journal of Computational Physics, 495:112537, 2023. SYMMETRIC CAES: ENHANCING LATENT STABILITY VIA DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 23

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Benettin, L

    G. Benettin, L. Galgani, A. Giorgilli, and J.-M. Strelcyn. Lyapunov characteristic exponents for smooth dynamical systems and for hamiltonian systems; a method for computing all of them. part 1: Theory.Meccanica, 15(1):9–20, 1980

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Brivio and N

    S. Brivio and N. R. Franco. Deep symmetric autoencoders from the eckart-young-schmidt perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11641, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz.Data-driven science and engineering: Machine learning, dynamical systems, and control. Cambridge University Press, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    R. T. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    V. V. Chepyzhov and M. I. Vishik.Attractors for equations of mathematical physics, volume 49. American Mathe- matical Soc., 2002

    2002

  2. [10]

    Colanera and L

    A. Colanera and L. Magri. Quantized local reduced-order modeling in time (ql-rom).Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 447:118393, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Dutta, P

    S. Dutta, P. Rivera-Casillas, and M. W. Farthing. Neural ordinary differential equations for data-driven reduced order modeling of environmental hydrodynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13962, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    R. A. Edson, J. E. Bunder, T. W. Mattner, and A. J. Roberts. Lyapunov exponents of the kuramoto–sivashinsky pde. The ANZIAM Journal, 61(3):270–285, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Farenga, S

    N. Farenga, S. Fresca, S. Brivio, and A. Manzoni. On latent dynamics learning in nonlinear reduced order modeling. Neural Networks, 185:107146, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Floryan and M

    D. Floryan and M. D. Graham. Data-driven discovery of intrinsic dynamics.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(12):1113– 1120, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Foias, G

    C. Foias, G. R. Sell, and R. Temam. Inertial manifolds for nonlinear evolutionary equations.Journal of differential equations, 73(2):309–353, 1988

    1988

  8. [16]

    Fresca, L

    S. Fresca, L. Dede’, and A. Manzoni. A comprehensive deep learning-based approach to reduced order modeling of nonlinear time-dependent parametrized pdes.Journal of Scientific Computing, 87(2):61, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Fresca, F

    S. Fresca, F. Fatone, A. Manzoni, et al. Long-time prediction of nonlinear parametrized dynamical systems by deep learning-based reduced order models.Mathematics in Engineering, 5(6):1–36, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    R. Frigg. In what sense is the kolmogorov-sinai entropy a measure for chaotic behaviour?—bridging the gap between dynamical systems theory and communication theory.The British journal for the philosophy of science, 55(3):411–434, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    F. J. Gonzalez and M. Balajewicz. Deep convolutional recurrent autoencoders for learning low-dimensional feature dynamics of fluid systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.01346, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Goodfellow

    I. Goodfellow. Deep learning, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Gupta, P

    P. Gupta, P. Schmid, D. Sipp, T. Sayadi, and G. Rigas. Mori–zwanzig latent space koopman closure for nonlinear autoencoder.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 481(2313), 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    A. J. Hey. High performance computing-past, present and future.Computing and Control Engineering, 8(1):33–42, 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    Huntsman, J

    S. Huntsman, J. C. Baez, and C. Weis. Towards a rigorous particle interpretation for the kuramoto-sivashinsky equation. In2023 Joint Mathematics Meetings (JMM 2023). AMS, 2022

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kassam and L

    A.-K. Kassam and L. N. Trefethen. Fourth-order time-stepping for stiff pdes.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 26(4):1214–1233, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. M. Lee. Smooth manifolds. InIntroduction to smooth manifolds, pages 1–29. Springer, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Margazoglou and L

    G. Margazoglou and L. Magri. Stability analysis of chaotic systems from data.Nonlinear Dynamics, 111(9):8799–8819, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Maulik, B

    R. Maulik, B. Lusch, and P. Balaprakash. Reduced-order modeling of advection-dominated systems with recurrent neural networks and convolutional autoencoders.Physics of Fluids, 33(3), 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Menier, S

    E. Menier, S. Kaltenbach, M. Yagoubi, M. Schoenauer, and P. Koumoutsakos. Interpretable learning of effective dynamicsformultiscalesystems.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 481(2305), 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    A. T. Mohan, N. Lubbers, M. Chertkov, and D. Livescu. Embedding hard physical constraints in neural network coarse-graining of three-dimensional turbulence.Physical Review Fluids, 8(1):014604, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    A. Olmo, A. Zamzam, A. Glaws, and R. King. Physics-driven convolutional autoencoder approach for cfd data com- pressions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09262, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    V. I. Oseledec. A multiplicative ergodic theorem, lyapunov characteristic numbers for dynamical systems.Transactions of the Moscow Mathematical Society, 19:197–231, 1968

    1968

  25. [33]

    S. E. Otto, G. R. Macchio, and C. W. Rowley. Learning nonlinear projections for reduced-order modeling of dynamical systems using constrained autoencoders.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 33(11), 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Özalp and L

    E. Özalp and L. Magri. Stability analysis of chaotic systems in latent spaces.Nonlinear Dynamics, 113(11):13791– 13806, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, and A. Lerer. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. InNIPS-W, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Pathak, B

    J. Pathak, B. Hunt, M. Girvan, Z. Lu, and E. Ott. Model-free prediction of large spatiotemporally chaotic systems from data: A reservoir computing approach.Physical review letters, 120(2):024102, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Pathak, Z

    J. Pathak, Z. Lu, B. R. Hunt, M. Girvan, and E. Ott. Using machine learning to replicate chaotic attractors and calculate lyapunov exponents from data.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 27(12), 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Pathak, A

    J. Pathak, A. Wikner, R. Fussell, S. Chandra, B. R. Hunt, M. Girvan, and E. Ott. Hybrid forecasting of chaotic processes: Using machine learning in conjunction with a knowledge-based model.Chaos: An interdisciplinary journal of nonlinear science, 28(4), 2018. 24 SYMMETRIC CAES...

    2018

  31. [39]

    Peherstorfer

    B. Peherstorfer. Breaking the kolmogorov barrier with nonlinear model reduction.Notices of the American Mathe- matical Society, 69(5):725–733, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Pichi, B

    F. Pichi, B. Moya, and J. S. Hesthaven. A graph convolutional autoencoder approach to model order reduction for parametrized pdes.Journal of Computational Physics, 501:112762, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Pikovsky and A

    A. Pikovsky and A. Politi.Lyapunov exponents: a tool to explore complex dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    S. B. Pope. Turbulent flows.Measurement Science and Technology, 12(11):2020–2021, 2001

    2020

  35. [43]

    Quarteroni, G

    A. Quarteroni, G. Rozza, et al.Reduced order methods for modeling and computational reduction, volume 9. Springer, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    Racca, N

    A. Racca, N. A. K. Doan, and L. Magri. Predicting turbulent dynamics with the convolutional autoencoder echo state network.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 975:A2, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    R. K. Raj, C. J. Romanowski, J. Impagliazzo, S. G. Aly, B. A. Becker, J. Chen, S. Ghafoor, N. Giacaman, S. I. Gordon, C. Izu, et al. High performance computing education: Current challenges and future directions. InProceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Tec...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Rifai, P

    S. Rifai, P. Vincent, X. Muller, X. Glorot, and Y. Bengio. Contractive auto-encoders: Explicit invariance during feature extraction. InProceedings of the 28th international conference on international conference on machine learning, pages 833–840, 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Romor, G

    F. Romor, G. Stabile, and G. Rozza. Non-linear manifold reduced-order models with convolutional autoencoders and reduced over-collocation method.Journal of Scientific Computing, 94(3):74, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Sagaut.Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows: an introduction

    P. Sagaut.Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows: an introduction. Springer, 2006

    2006

  41. [49]

    P. J. Schmid. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data.Journal of fluid mechanics, 656:5–28, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    C. Skokos. The lyapunov characteristic exponents and their computation. InDynamics of small solar system bodies and exoplanets, pages 63–135. Springer, 2009

    2009

  43. [51]

    Solera-Rico, C

    A. Solera-Rico, C. Sanmiguel Vila, M. Gómez-López, Y. Wang, A. Almashjary, S. T. Dawson, and R. Vinuesa. β-variational autoencoders and transformers for reduced-order modelling of fluid flows.Nature Communications, 15(1):1361, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    R. Temam. Inertial manifolds.The Mathematical Intelligencer, 12(4):68–74, 1990

    1990

  45. [53]

    Temam.Infinite-dimensional dynamical systems in mechanics and physics

    R. Temam.Infinite-dimensional dynamical systems in mechanics and physics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  46. [54]

    Tonioni, L

    N. Tonioni, L. Agostini, F. Kerhervé, L. Cordier, and R. Vinuesa. Vivaldy: A hybrid generative reduced-order model for turbulent flows, applied to vortex-induced vibrations.Physical Review Fluids, 11(4):044902, 2026

    2026

  47. [55]

    Vincent, H

    P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, and P.-A. Manzagol. Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. InProceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 1096–1103, 2008

    2008

  48. [56]

    P. R. Vlachas, W. Byeon, Z. Y. Wan, T. P. Sapsis, and P. Koumoutsakos. Data-driven forecasting of high-dimensional chaotic systems with long short-term memory networks.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2213), 2018

    2018

  49. [57]

    Vlachas, J

    P.-R. Vlachas, J. Pathak, B. R. Hunt, T. P. Sapsis, M. Girvan, E. Ott, and P. Koumoutsakos. Backpropagation algo- rithms and reservoir computing in recurrent neural networks for the forecasting of complex spatiotemporal dynamics. Neural Networks, 126:191–217, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Weiler, P

    M. Weiler, P. Forré, E. Verlinde, and M. Welling.Equivariant and Coordinate Independent Convolutional Networks. 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    P. J. Werbos. Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it.Proceedings of the IEEE, 78(10):1550– 1560, 2002

    2002

  52. [60]

    Whiteley, A

    N. Whiteley, A. Gray, and P. Rubin-Delanchy. Statistical exploration of the manifold hypothesis, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    D. C. Wilcox et al.Turbulence modeling for CFD, volume 2. DCW industries La Canada, CA, 1998

    1998

  54. [62]

    S. Zelik. Inertial manifolds and finite-dimensional reduction for dissipative pdes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics, 144(6):1245–1327, 2014

    2014

  55. [63]

    Zighed, N

    I. Zighed, N. Thome, P. Gallinari, and T. Sayadi. Uncertainty-aware and parametrized dynamic reduced-order model: Application to unsteady flows.Physical Review Fluids, 10(11):114902, 2025. AppendixA.Chaotic systems A.1.Lyapunov Exponents (LEs) and related quantities.Letu(t,µ)b...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.