Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Theory and numerics of subspace approximation of eigenvalue problems

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For symmetric generalized eigenvalue problems, projecting onto a reduced basis yields eigenvalue estimates provably bounded above by a computable factor times the true eigenvalue, and eigenspace errors are bounded too.

desk verdict Genuinely useful SPD reduced-basis eigenvalue bounds with a real, but repairable, scope error: the WLOG shift to positive definite A is not tracked, so the stated theorems do not cover the indefinite examples in Sections 5.3 and 5.4. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08891 v2 pith:QTXLAUBI submitted 2024-12-12 math.NA cs.NA

Siu Wun Cheung , Youngsoo Choi , Seung Whan Chung , Jean-Luc Fattebert , Coleman Kendrick , Daniel Osei-Kuffuor This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N2565F1565N3015A18
keywords reducedordermodeleigenvalueproblemssubspaceapproximationapriorierrorestimatesnon-simpleeigenvaluesmin-maxprincipleparametrizedobliqueprojection
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 establishes rigorous a priori error estimates for subspace (reduced-basis) approximations of parametric symmetric generalized eigenvalue problems $A(\mu)\varphi = \lambda M(\mu)\varphi$. The central result is that the $k$-th projected eigenvalue $\tilde{\lambda}_k$ never falls below the true eigenvalue $\lambda_k$ and is bounded above by $\kappa_k^2 \lambda_k$, where $\kappa_k$ is a computable measure of how well the reduced subspace captures the first $k$ eigenvectors. For eigenspaces, the paper shows that the $M$-norm error of a projected eigenspace is controlled by the residual of an oblique projection onto the reduced subspace, multiplied by a spectral-gap factor. These bounds hold without requiring simple eigenvalues, so they cover repeated eigenvalues that arise naturally in heterogeneous diffusion and Schrödinger-type problems. If correct, the estimates give practitioners a certificate that a small projected system can replace a large full-order solve.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the oblique projector $P_A = Q(Q^\top A Q)^{-1} Q^\top A$, which maps $\mathbb{R}^n$ onto the reduced basis space along the $A$-orthogonal complement. Lemma 4.4 proves $P_A$ is non-expansive in the $A$-norm, $\|P_A x\|_A \le \|x\|_A$, and this single inequality converts the Rayleigh quotient of a projected eigenvector into a comparison with the true eigenvalue. The two constants that carry the quantitative control are $\kappa_k$, a generalized Rayleigh quotient measuring the distortion of the first $k$ eigenvectors under $P_A$, and $\tau_j$, a spectral-gap factor defined from the distance between $\nu_j$ and the projected eigenvalues of other eigenspaces. The min-max theorem (Theorem 4.2), built on the generalized Rayleigh quotient $R_{A,M}(x)=x^\top A x / x^\top M x$, supplies the lower bound and orders the eigenvalues.

What would settle it

Compute $\kappa_k$ and $\tilde{\lambda}_k$ by the Appendix A procedure for a positive-definite pair $(A,M)$ at a test parameter where the reduced basis is deliberately poor (e.g., one snapshot drawn from a two-dimensional parameter domain); if $\tilde{\lambda}_k > \kappa_k^2 \lambda_k$ at any test point, Theorem 4.6 is false. For the unresolved indefinite case, repeat with an indefinite $A$: a violation there would show the shift-to-positive-definite step does not transfer the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Rayleigh-Ritz (subspace) projection of a symmetric generalized eigenproblem inherits guaranteed one-sided error control. Theorem 4.6 states that for $1\le k\le r$, the projected eigenvalue satisfies $\lambda_k \le \tilde{\lambda}_k \le \kappa_k^2 \lambda_k$, where $\kappa_k$ is the supremum over the true eigenvector subspace of the ratio $\|y\|_M / \|P_A y\|_M$, and $P_A = Q(Q^\top A Q)^{-1}Q^\top A$ is the oblique projector onto the reduced basis. Theorem 4.7 states that for any vector $x$ in the eigenspace $E_j$ of a distinct eigenvalue $\nu_j$, the $M$-norm distance from $x$ to the projected eigenspace is at most $(1+\tau_j)\|(I-P_A)x\|_M$, with $\tau_j$ a scaled inverse spectral gap. Because the analysis works with whole eigenspaces rather than individual eigenvectors, it covers non-simple eigenvalues, where eigenvectors themselves are ambiguous but the eigenspace is well defined.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $A$ can be taken positive definite without loss of generality by shifting it to $A+tM$; the proofs of Theorems 4.6 and 4.7 use the $A$-norm and the oblique projector $P_A$, and the paper does not establish the stated bounds for indefinite $A$, even though two of its own numerical examples involve negative eigenvalues.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At any tested parameter, the reduced-basis eigenvalue $\tilde{\lambda}_k$ is a guaranteed upper bound of $\lambda_k$ and is never more than $\kappa_k^2$ times it, so accuracy can be certified without re-solving the full system.
  • Repeated or clustered eigenvalues are covered: the eigenspace bound applies to the entire degenerate space, not to a chosen eigenvector, so one does not need to resolve the ambiguity of eigenvectors within an eigenspace.
  • The constants $\kappa_k$ and $\tau_j$ are computable from snapshots and the reduced solution, so the error estimates can be evaluated in practice and not just stated asymptotically.
  • Denser snapshot sampling directly reduces the growth of $\kappa_k$, as demonstrated in the harmonic oscillator example where refining the training set from four to nine parameter points cut the interpolation error from order $10^0$ to below $10^{-6}$.
  • The framework applies to parametric boundary conditions and coefficient fields from finite-element discretizations of Laplace, Schrödinger, and heterogeneous diffusion problems, including multi-dimensional parameter domains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bounds suggest a direct adaptive greedy criterion: use $\kappa_k$ (or the residual $\|(I-P_A)x\|_M$) as a cheap error indicator to choose the next snapshot parameter; the paper does not propose such a greedy algorithm.
  • Because Theorem 4.7 is stated for entire eigenspaces, it likely transfers to block Rayleigh-Ritz approximations of several eigenvectors at once; testing this on the double-eigenvalue example of Section 5.5 would be a direct check.
  • When an eigenvector rotates sharply with the parameter, $\kappa_k$ grows and the upper bound widens, which explains the coarse-sampling failure in the harmonic oscillator example and suggests that snapshot sets must straddle the rotation region.
  • An open direction implicit in the paper is the indefinite case: the shift argument is asserted but not proved, so extending Theorems 4.6 and 4.7 to problems whose $A$ has negative eigenvalues (as in the Gaussian and diatomic well examples) requires a separate argument.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies reduced-basis (subspace) approximation of parametric symmetric generalized eigenvalue problems Ax=lambda Mx. The main theoretical results are Theorem 4.6, which gives the two-sided bound lambda_k <= tilde_lambda_k <= kappa_k^2 lambda_k for the k-th projected eigenvalue, and Theorem 4.7, which bounds the M-norm distance from any vector in the true eigenspace E_j to the projected eigenspace by (1+tau_j) times the oblique-projection residual of that vector. The proofs use the min-max principle, an oblique projector P_A onto the reduced basis, and an assumed full-rank condition on P_A Phi^(r). The paper also presents numerical experiments for Laplacian, harmonic-oscillator, Gaussian-well, diatomic-well, and heterogeneous-diffusion problems in one to three dimensions, including a case with repeated eigenvalues.

Significance. If the analysis is understood as restricted to A positive definite, the paper delivers a clean and useful result: guaranteed one-sided eigenvalue bounds and near-best eigenspace approximation for symmetric generalized eigenproblems without requiring simple eigenvalues. This is a genuine improvement over earlier reduced-basis eigenvalue bounds that are limited to the smallest or simple eigenpairs, and the numerical study covers substantial three-dimensional problems with parameter-dependent coefficients and degenerate eigenspaces. The bounds are genuine mathematical inequalities with no curve-fitted constants; the numerical experiments illustrate rather than fit the theory. The main caveat is that the stated theorems are not valid for indefinite A, and the paper's own numerical examples with negative eigenvalues lie outside the stated hypotheses; this is a fixable scope error, not a flaw in the positive-definite analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph preceding Lemma 4.4] The assertion that A can be assumed positive definite 'without loss of generality' by replacing A with A+tM is not valid for the stated results. Lemma 4.4 and the proofs of Theorems 4.6 and 4.7 use the A-induced norm and the non-expansiveness of P_A, which require A to be positive definite. Under the shift A -> A+tM, the oblique projector P_A, the constants kappa_k, and the spectral interval in Theorem 4.7 all change, and the inequality for the original pencil becomes tilde_lambda_k(A) <= kappa_{A+tM,k}^2(lambda_k(A)+t) - t rather than kappa_k^2 lambda_k(A). The stated bound is therefore false for indefinite A: for A=diag(-1,2), M=I, Q=(1,1)^T/sqrt(2), r=1, one has tilde_lambda_1=1/2 and kappa_1=1/sqrt(2), while kappa_1^2 lambda_1=-1/2, violating tilde_lambda_1 <= kappa_1^2 lambda_1. Since Sections 5.3 and 5.4 report examples with negative eigenvalues, those numerical results are not covered by the stated theorems. The theorems should be restricted to A positive definite, or restated with shifted constants and shifted bounds, and the numerical claims should be adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Theorem 4.7 and its proof] The eigenspace bound in Theorem 4.7 also inherits the indefiniteness problem. When nu_j < 0, the quantity tau_j = nu_j / min_{k in S_j^c} |nu_j - tilde_lambda_k| is negative, and the step 'by a triangle inequality' yielding ||(I - tilde_P^{S_j}_M P_A)x||_M <= (1+tau_j)||(I-P_A)x||_M is not a valid inequality; the triangle inequality gives (1+|tau_j|), not (1+tau_j). The proof is correct only when all relevant eigenvalues are positive, so that nu_j > 0 and tau_j >= 0. This is another manifestation of the same WLOG defect, but it affects the main eigenspace approximation result independently and should be fixed by either assuming A positive definite or by writing the factor as 1+|tau_j| under appropriate conditions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph before Theorem 4.6] There is a typo: 'Moerover' should be 'Moreover'.
  2. [Theorem 4.6 proof] The notation 'Gr_m(R^n)' should be 'Gr_k(R^n)' when referring to the k-dimensional subspace R(tilde_Phi^(k)).
  3. [Section 5.2, coarse-sampling paragraph] The text states that the coarse training set leads to a basis of column size r=16, but then says Figure 6 illustrates bounds for '1 <= k <= r=36'; this should be r=16 for the coarse case.
  4. [Section 5.4, Figure 16 caption] The caption repeats the word 'parametric' ('parametric parametric diatomic well potential'); please remove the duplicate.
  5. [Section 5.2, training-set description] The term 'density' for the training sets D_train={1,3}x{0,1} and D_train={1,2,3}x{0,0.5,1} is not defined; please clarify what density means in this context.
  6. [Section 5 and Appendix A] The numerical 'verification' of the upper bounds in Theorem 4.6 and Theorem 4.7 computes kappa_k and tau_j from the full-order eigenvectors whose error is being bounded (see Appendix A). This is a consistency check rather than an independent a posteriori verification, and the text should state this limitation explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the error bounds are derived self-contained, and the numerical checks are consistency verifications rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 4.6 is proven directly from the min-max principle (Theorem 4.2), the non-expansiveness of the oblique projector in the A-norm (Lemma 4.4), and the definition of kappa_k; Theorem 4.7 follows from Lemma 4.5, the defining identity (4.1), and the spectral-gap quantity tau_j. No external uniqueness theorem or prior work by the authors is load-bearing: the cited references [12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23] appear only as background in the introduction. The numerical verification in Figures 2, 6, and 9 computes kappa_k and tau_j from the full-order eigenvectors and ROM eigenvalues and then checks the displayed inequalities, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent falsification; however, no parameter is fitted to force the bounds and the inequalities are exact consequences of the assumptions. The only substantive caveat is a scope gap, not a circularity: Section 4 states A in S^n_{++} 'without loss of generality' via the shift A+tM, but Theorem 4.6's upper bound is proved for the shifted operator and is not shift-invariant, so the negative-eigenvalue examples of Sections 5.3 and 5.4 are not covered by the stated guarantees. This is a correctness/scope concern and does not make the derivation circular.

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

The theory itself has no fitted constants. The important input assumptions are the symmetric positive definite setting plus three structural conditions: full rank of P_A Phi^(r), lambda_r < lambda_{r+1}, and spectral separation nu_j not in [lambda_k, kappa_k^2 lambda_k]. The purported shift to A positive definite is not tracked and is the main unresolved assumption.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Spectral theorem and min-max characterization of generalized eigenvalues for symmetric A and M positive definite.
    Used in Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.2; standard background for symmetric generalized eigenproblems.
  • domain assumption A is symmetric positive definite, declared without loss of generality by shifting with tM.
    The A-norm and non-expansiveness of P_A in Lemma 4.4 require A positive definite. The shift is not actually WLOG for the stated bounds because it changes P_A and kappa_k.
  • domain assumption P_A Phi^(r) has full rank, ensuring kappa_k is finite.
    The authors flag in Section 4 that this is not always guaranteed and can fail when the reduced basis is poorly aligned with the first r eigenvectors.
  • domain assumption Spectral separation: lambda_r < lambda_{r+1} and nu_j is not in [lambda_k, kappa_k^2 lambda_k] for k outside the eigenspace.
    Needed for Theorem 4.7 to define tau_j; the authors note it is non-generic when kappa_k is large.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory and numerics of subspace approximation of eigenvalue problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTXLAUBI

@misc{pith2026241208891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory and numerics of subspace approximation of eigenvalue problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTXLAUBI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08891}
}
read the original abstract

Large-scale eigenvalue problems arise in various fields of science and engineering and demand computationally efficient solutions. In this study, we investigate the subspace approximation for parametric linear eigenvalue problems, aiming to mitigate the computational burden associated with high-fidelity systems. We provide general error estimates under non-simple eigenvalue conditions, establishing some theoretical foundations for understanding the convergence behavior of subspace approximations. Numerical examples, including problems with one-dimensional to three-dimensional spatial domain and one-dimensional to two-dimensional parameter domain, are presented to demonstrate the efficacy of reduced basis method in handling parametric variations in boundary conditions and coefficient fields to achieve significant computational savings while maintaining high accuracy, making them promising tools for practical applications in large-scale eigenvalue computations.

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. Model Order Reduction for Quantum Molecular Dynamics

    physics.chem-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Projection-based model order reduction onto an SVD-learned subspace reproduces water QMD trajectories with visual agreement to high-fidelity DFT, but only within the sampled configuration domain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2019

    Singiresu S Rao.Vibration of continuous systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Computational quantum chemistry: A primer

    Eric Canc` es, Mireille Defranceschi, Werner Kutzelnigg, Claude Le Bris, and Yvon Maday. Computational quantum chemistry: A primer. InSpecial Volume, Computational Chemistry, volume 10 ofHandbook of Numerical Analysis, pages 3–270. Elsevier, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Toward the optimal preconditioned eigensolver: Locally optimal block preconditioned conjugate gradient method.SIAM journal on scientific computing, 23(2):517–541, 2001

    Andrew V Knyazev. Toward the optimal preconditioned eigensolver: Locally optimal block preconditioned conjugate gradient method.SIAM journal on scientific computing, 23(2):517–541, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows

    Gal Berkooz, Philip Holmes, and John L Lumley. The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 25(1):539–575, 1993

    1993

  5. [5]

    Safonov and R.Y

    Michael G. Safonov and R.Y. Chiang. A Schur method for balanced-truncation model reduction.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 34(7):729–733, 1989

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Gianluigi Rozza, Dinh Bao Phuong Huynh, and Anthony T Patera. Reduced basis approximation and a posteriori error estimation for affinely parametrized elliptic coercive partial differential equations: application to transport and continuum mechanics.Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 15(3):229, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders.Journal of Computational Physics, 404:108973, 2020

    Kookjin Lee and Kevin T Carlberg. Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders.Journal of Computational Physics, 404:108973, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Reduced-order modeling of advection-dominated systems with recurrent neural networks and convolutional autoencoders.Physics of Fluids, 33(3):037106, 2021

    Romit Maulik, Bethany Lusch, and Prasanna Balaprakash. Reduced-order modeling of advection-dominated systems with recurrent neural networks and convolutional autoencoders.Physics of Fluids, 33(3):037106, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    A fast and accurate physics-informed neural network reduced order model with shallow masked autoencoder.Journal of Computational Physics, 451:110841, 2022

    Youngkyu Kim, Youngsoo Choi, David Widemann, and Tarek Zohdi. A fast and accurate physics-informed neural network reduced order model with shallow masked autoencoder.Journal of Computational Physics, 451:110841, 2022. 21

    2022

  2. [10]

    Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 32(5):2737–2764, 2010

    Saifon Chaturantabut and Danny C Sorensen. Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 32(5):2737–2764, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Zlatko Drmac and Arvind Krishna Saibaba. The discrete empirical interpolation method: Canonical structure and formulation in weighted inner product spaces.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 39(3):1152–1180, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    S-opt: A points selection algorithm for hyper-reduction in reduced order models.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 46(4):B474–B501, 2024

    Jessica T Lauzon, Siu Wun Cheung, Yeonjong Shin, Youngsoo Choi, Dylan M Copeland, and Kevin Huynh. S-opt: A points selection algorithm for hyper-reduction in reduced order models.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 46(4):B474–B501, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    The reduced basis method for the electric field integral equation.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(14):5532–5555, 2011

    M Fares, Jan S Hesthaven, Yvon Maday, and Benjamin Stamm. The reduced basis method for the electric field integral equation.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(14):5532–5555, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    A reduced-order representation of the Schr¨ odinger equation.AIP Advances, 6(9):095121, 2016

    Ming-C Cheng. A reduced-order representation of the Schr¨ odinger equation.AIP Advances, 6(9):095121, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Explicit and energy-conserving constraint energy minimizing generalized multiscale discontinuous galerkin method for wave propagation in heterogeneous media

    Siu Wun Cheung, Eric T Chung, Yalchin Efendiev, and Wing Tat Leung. Explicit and energy-conserving constraint energy minimizing generalized multiscale discontinuous galerkin method for wave propagation in heterogeneous media. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 19(4):1736–1759, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Space–time least-squares Petrov–Galerkin projection for nonlinear model reduction

    Youngsoo Choi and Kevin Carlberg. Space–time least-squares Petrov–Galerkin projection for nonlinear model reduction. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 41(1):A26–A58, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    SNS: a solution-based nonlinear subspace method for time- dependent model order reduction.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42(2):A1116–A1146, 2020

    Youngsoo Choi, Deshawn Coombs, and Robert Anderson. SNS: a solution-based nonlinear subspace method for time- dependent model order reduction.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42(2):A1116–A1146, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Conservative model reduction for finite-volume models.Journal of Computational Physics, 371:280–314, 2018

    Kevin Carlberg, Youngsoo Choi, and Syuzanna Sargsyan. Conservative model reduction for finite-volume models.Journal of Computational Physics, 371:280–314, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Reduced order models for lagrangian hydrodynamics.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 388:114259, 2022

    Dylan Matthew Copeland, Siu Wun Cheung, Kevin Huynh, and Youngsoo Choi. Reduced order models for lagrangian hydrodynamics.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 388:114259, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Local Lagrangian reduced-order modeling for Rayleigh–Taylor instability by solution manifold decomposition.Journal of Computational Physics, 472:111655, 2023

    Siu Wun Cheung, Youngsoo Choi, Dylan Matthew Copeland, and Kevin Huynh. Local Lagrangian reduced-order modeling for Rayleigh–Taylor instability by solution manifold decomposition.Journal of Computational Physics, 472:111655, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Localized model reduction in porous media flow.IF AC-PapersOnLine, 48(6):242–247, 2015

    Mohamadreza Ghasemi and Eduardo Gildin. Localized model reduction in porous media flow.IF AC-PapersOnLine, 48(6):242–247, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Constraint energy minimizing generalized multiscale finite element method for dual continuum model.Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 18(3):663–685, 2020

    Siu Wun Cheung, Eric T Chung, Yalchin Efendiev, Wing Tat Leung, and Maria Vasilyeva. Constraint energy minimizing generalized multiscale finite element method for dual continuum model.Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 18(3):663–685, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Space-time reduced order model for large-scale linear dynamical systems with application to Boltzmann transport problems.Journal of Computational Physics, 424:109845, 2021

    Youngsoo Choi, Peter Brown, Bill Arrighi, Roberti Anderson, and Kevin Huynh. Space-time reduced order model for large-scale linear dynamical systems with application to Boltzmann transport problems.Journal of Computational Physics, 424:109845, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    A survey of model reduction by balanced truncation and some new results

    Serkan Gugercin and Athanasios C Antoulas. A survey of model reduction by balanced truncation and some new results. International Journal of Control, 77(8):748–766, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems.SIAM review, 57(4):483–531, 2015

    Peter Benner, Serkan Gugercin, and Karen Willcox. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems.SIAM review, 57(4):483–531, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Yvon Maday, Anthony T Patera, and Jaume Peraire. A general formulation for a posteriori bounds for output functionals of partial differential equations; application to the eigenvalue problem.Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences- Series I-Mathematics, 328(9):823–828, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Luc Machiels, Yvon Maday, Ivan B Oliveira, Anthony T Patera, and Dimitrios V Rovas. Output bounds for reduced-basis approximations of symmetric positive definite eigenvalue problems.Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences- Series I-Mathematics, 331(2):153–158, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    A subspace method for large-scale eigenvalue optimiza- tion.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 39(1):48–82, 2018

    Fatih Kangal, Karl Meerbergen, Emre Mengi, and Wim Michiels. A subspace method for large-scale eigenvalue optimiza- tion.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 39(1):48–82, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Subspace acceleration for large-scale parameter-dependent hermitian eigenproblems

    Petar Sirkovic and Daniel Kressner. Subspace acceleration for large-scale parameter-dependent hermitian eigenproblems. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 37(2):695–718, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Ivan Fumagalli, Andrea Manzoni, Nicola Parolini, and Marco Verani. Reduced basis approximation and a posteriori error estimates for parametrized elliptic eigenvalue problems.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 50(6):1857–1885, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Reduced basis approximation of parametric eigenvalue problems in presence of clusters and intersections.Computational and Applied Mathematics, 43(8):443, 2024

    Daniele Boffi, Abdul Halim, and Gopal Priyadarshi. Reduced basis approximation of parametric eigenvalue problems in presence of clusters and intersections.Computational and Applied Mathematics, 43(8):443, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    On reduced basis methods for eigenvalue problems, and on its coupling with perturbation theory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11924, 2024

    Louis Garrigue and Benjamin Stamm. On reduced basis methods for eigenvalue problems, and on its coupling with perturbation theory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11924, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Uniform approximation of eigenproblems of a large-scale parameter- dependent hermitian matrix.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05791, 2024

    Mattia Manucci, Emre Mengi, and Nicola Guglielmi. Uniform approximation of eigenproblems of a large-scale parameter- dependent hermitian matrix.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05791, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    A reduced basis approach to large-scale pseudospectra computation.Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 26(2):e2222, 2019

    Petar Sirkovi´ c. A reduced basis approach to large-scale pseudospectra computation.Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 26(2):e2222, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Surrogate models for quantum spin systems based on reduced-order modeling.Physical Review E, 105(4):045303, 2022

    Michael F Herbst, Benjamin Stamm, Stefan Wessel, and Matteo Rizzi. Surrogate models for quantum spin systems based on reduced-order modeling.Physical Review E, 105(4):045303, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Reduced basis surrogates for quantum spin systems based on tensor networks.Physical Review E, 108(2):025306, 2023

    Paul Brehmer, Michael F Herbst, Stefan Wessel, Matteo Rizzi, and Benjamin Stamm. Reduced basis surrogates for quantum spin systems based on tensor networks.Physical Review E, 108(2):025306, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Yonah Conjungo Taumhas, Genevi` eve Dusson, Virginie Ehrlacher, Tony Leli` evre, and Fran¸ cois Madiot. Reduced basis method for non-symmetric eigenvalue problems: application to the multigroup neutron diffusion equations.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 5...

    1959

  30. [38]

    Simultaneous reduced basis approximation of parameterized 22 elliptic eigenvalue problems.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 51(2):443–465, 2017

    Thomas Horger, Barbara Wohlmuth, and Thomas Dickopf. Simultaneous reduced basis approximation of parameterized 22 elliptic eigenvalue problems.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 51(2):443–465, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    A reduced order model for the finite element approximation of eigenvalue problems.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 404:115696, 2023

    Fleurianne Bertrand, Daniele Boffi, and Abdul Halim. A reduced order model for the finite element approximation of eigenvalue problems.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 404:115696, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    SIAM, 1998

    Beresford N Parlett.The symmetric eigenvalue problem. SIAM, 1998

    1998

  33. [41]

    Anderson, J

    R. Anderson, J. Andrej, A. Barker, J. Bramwell, J.-S. Camier, J. Cerveny, V. Dobrev, Y. Dudouit, A. Fisher, Tz. Kolev, W. Pazner, M. Stowell, V. Tomov, I. Akkerman, J. Dahm, D. Medina, and S. Zampini. MFEM: A modular finite element methods library.Computers & Mathematics with ...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Visit: Experiences with sustainable software.arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.1796, 2013

    Sean Ahern, Eric Brugger, Brad Whitlock, Jeremy S Meredith, Kathleen Biagas, Mark C Miller, and Hank Childs. Visit: Experiences with sustainable software.arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.1796, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    MIT Press, 2022

    Barton Zwiebach.Mastering quantum mechanics: essentials, theory, and applications. MIT Press, 2022. Appendix A. Evaluation of upper bound for eλk.We discuss the procedure of computingκ k in the eigenvalue upper bound in Theorem 4.6, from the matrix of generalized eigenvectorsΦ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.