Advances in Computational Mathematics

, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 1187–1230 | Cite as

Fast local reduced basis updates for the efficient reduction of nonlinear systems with hyper-reduction

  • David AmsallemEmail author
  • Matthew J. Zahr
  • Kyle Washabaugh


Projection-based model reduction techniques rely on the definition of a small dimensional subspace in which the solution is approximated. Using local subspaces reduces the dimensionality of each subspace and enables larger speedups. Transitions between local subspaces require special care and updating the reduced bases associated with each subspace increases the accuracy of the reduced-order model. In the present work, local reduced basis updates are considered in the case of hyper-reduction, for which only the components of state vectors and reduced bases defined at specific grid points are available. To enable local reduced basis updates, two comprehensive approaches are proposed. The first one is based on an offline/online decomposition. The second approach relies on an approximated metric acting only on those components where the state vector is defined. This metric is computed offline and used online to update the local bases. An analysis of the error associated with this approximated metric is then conducted and it is shown that the metric has a kernel interpretation. Finally, the application of the proposed approaches to the model reduction of two nonlinear physical systems illustrates their potential for achieving large speedups and good accuracy.


Model reduction Nonlinear dimensionality reduction Reduced basis Hyper-reduction Approximated metric Singular value decomposition Offline/online decomposition Kernel methods 

Mathematics Subject Classfication

65M99 78M34 35Q51 76N99 76H05 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amsallem, D., Cortial, J., Carlberg, K., Farhat, C.: A method for interpolating on manifolds structural dynamics reduced-order models. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 80(9), 1241–1258 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amsallem, D., Cortial, J., Farhat, C.: Toward real-time computational-fluid-dynamics-based aeroelastic computations using a database of reduced-order information. AIAA J 48(9), 2029–2037 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amsallem, D., Farhat, C.: Interpolation method for adapting reduced-order models and application to aeroelasticity. AIAA J 46(7), 1803–1813 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amsallem, D., Farhat, C.: An online method for interpolating linear parametric reduced-order models. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33(5), 2169–2198 (2011)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amsallem, D., Zahr, M.J., Choi, Y., Farhat, C.: Design Optimization Using Hyper-Reduced-Order Models. published online, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amsallem, D., Zahr, M.J., Farhat, C.: Nonlinear model order reduction based on local reduced-order bases. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 92(10), 891–916 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    An, S.S., Kim, T., James, D.L.: Optimizing cubature for efficient integration of subspace deformations. ACM Trans. Graph 27(5), 1 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anttonen, J.: Techniques for reduced order modeling of aeroelastic structures with deforming grids. Ph.D. Thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Astrid, P., Weiland, S., Willcox, K.: Missing point estimation in models described by proper orthogonal decomposition. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. 53(10), 2237–2251 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balajewicz, M., Dowell, E.H., Noack, B.R.: Low-dimensional modelling of high-Reynolds-number shear flows incorporating constraints from the Navier–Stokes equation. J. Fluid Mech. 729, 285–308 (2013)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barone, M.F., Kalashnikova, I., Segalman, D., Thornquist, H.: Stable Galerkin reduced order models for linearized compressible flow. J. Comput. Phys. 228(6), 1932–1946 (2009)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrault, M., Maday, Y., Nguyen, N.C., Patera, A.T.: An empirical interpolation method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretization of partial differential equations. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences Paris 339, 667–672 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex optimization. Cambridge university press (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brand, M.: Fast low-rank modifications of the thin singular value decomposition. Linear Algebra Appl. 415, 20–30 (2006)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bui-Thanh, T., Willcox, K., Ghattas, O.: Parametric reduced-order models for probabilistic analysis of unsteady aerodynamic applications. AIAA J. 46(10), 2520–2529 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carlberg, K., Bou-Mosleh, C., Farhat, C.: Efficient non-linear model reduction via a least-squares Petrov–Galerkin projection and compressive tensor approximations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 86(2), 155–181 (2011)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carlberg, K., Farhat, C., Cortial, J., Amsallem, D.: The GNAT method for nonlinear model reduction: effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows. J. Comput. Phys. 242(C), 623–647 (2013)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Casenave, F., Ern, A., Lelièvre, T.: Accurate and online-efficient evaluation of the a posteriori error bound in the reduced basis method. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 48(1), 207–229 (2014)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chaturantabut, S., Sorensen, D.: Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 32(5), 2737–2764 (2010)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chipman, J.S.: On least squares with insufficient observations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 59(308), 1078–1111 (1964)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dihlmann, M., Drohmann, M., Haasdonk, B.: Model reduction of parametrized evolution problems using the reduced basis method with adaptive time-partitioning. Proc. ADMOS 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drohmann, M., Haasdonk, B., Ohlberger, M. Adaptive Reduced Basis Methods for Nonlinear Convection–Diffusion Equations. In: Finite Volumes for Complex Applications VI – Problems & Perspectives, pp. 369–377. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics 4 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edelman, A., Arias, T., Smith, S.: The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 20(2), 303–353 (1998)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eftang, J.L., Patera, A.T., Rønquist, E.M.: An “hp” certified reduced basis method for parametrized elliptic partial differential equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 32(6), 3170–3200 (2010)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eftang, J.L., Stamm, B.: Parameter multi-domain ‘hp’ empirical interpolation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 90, 412–428 (2012)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Everson, R., Sirovich, L.: Karhunen–Loeve procedure for gappy data. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12(8), 1657–1664 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerbeau, J.F., Lombardi, D.: Approximated Lax pairs for the reduced order integration of nonlinear evolution equations. J. Comput. Phys. 265, 246–269 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Golub, G.H., Van Loan, C.F.: Matrix computations. Johns Hopkins University Press (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greville, T.: Note on fitting of functions of several independent variables. J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. (1961)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gu, C., Roychowdhury, J.: Model reduction via projection onto nonlinear manifolds, with applications to analog circuits and biochemical systems. Proc. 2008 IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. Comput. Aided Des., 85–92 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haasdonk, B., Dihlmann, M., Ohlberger, M.: A training set and multiple bases generation approach for parameterized model reduction based on adaptive grids in parameter space. Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst. 17(4), 423–442 (2011)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haasdonk, B., Ohlberger, M.: Efficient reduced models and a posteriori error estimation for parametrized dynamical systems by offline/online decomposition. Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst. 17(2), 145–161 (2011)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Idelsohn, S., Cardona, A.: A reduction method for nonlinear structural dynamic analysis. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 49, 253–270 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krislock, N.: Numerical solution of semidefinite constrained least squares problems. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Mathematics. University of British Columbia (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mohri, M., Rostamizadeh, A., Talwalkar, A.: Foundations of Machine Learning. Mit Press (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Panzer, H., Mohring, J., Eid, R., Lohmann, B.: Parametric Model Order Reduction by Matrix Interpolation. at-Automatisierungstechnik 58(8), 475–484 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paul-Dubois-Taine, A., Amsallem, D.: An adaptive and efficient greedy procedure for the optimal training of parametric reduced-order models. published online, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peherstorfer, B., Butnaru, D., Willcox, K., Bungartz, H.J.: Localized discrete empirical interpolation method. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 36(1), A168–A192 (2014)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rozza, G., Huynh, D., Patera, A.T.: Reduced basis approximation and a posteriori error estimation for affinely parametrized elliptic coercive partial differential equations. Arch. Comput Methods Eng. 15, 229–275 (2008)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ryckelynck, D.: A priori hyperreduction method: an adaptive approach. J. Comput. Phys. 202(1), 346–366 (2005)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sirovich, L.: Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. Part I: coherent structures. Q. Appl. Math. 45(3), 561–571 (1987)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stewart, G.W.: Perturbation theory for the singular value decomposition. svd and signal processing, II: algorithms. Anal. Appl., 99–109 (1990)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Washabaugh, K., Amsallem, D., Zahr, M.J., Farhat, C.: Nonlinear Model Reduction for CFD Problems Using Local Reduced Order Bases. AIAA Paper 2012-2686, 42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit 25–28 June 2012, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 1–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wendland, H.: Scattered data approximation. Cambridge University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Willcox, K., Peraire, J.: Balanced model reduction via the proper orthogonal decomposition. AIAA J. 40(11), 2323–2330 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Amsallem
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew J. Zahr
    • 2
  • Kyle Washabaugh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Aeronautics and AstronauticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Computational and Mathematical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations