An a-posteriori analysis of co-kurtosis PCA based dimensionality reduction using a neural ODE solver

Hemanth Kolla; Konduri Aditya; Tadikonda Shiva Sai

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

An a-posteriori analysis of co-kurtosis PCA based dimensionality reduction using a neural ODE solver

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cokurtosis-based PCA manifold, evolved in time with a neural ODE solver, reproduces autoignition thermochemistry and beats standard PCA for minor species and heat release rate in the reaction zone.

desk verdict First closed-loop CoK-PCA test, but the successful neural-ODE closure conditions on the initial condition—so the broader reacting-flow claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02797 v1 pith:2ZP5NQTN submitted 2025-01-06 physics.comp-ph

Tadikonda Shiva Sai , Hemanth Kolla , Konduri Aditya This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.comp-ph

keywords cokurtosisPCAdimensionalityreductionneuralordinarydifferentialequationsautoignitionlow-dimensionalmanifoldcombustionmodelingchemicalkineticsprincipalcomponentanalysis

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

CoK-PCA builds low-dimensional manifolds for combustion chemistry by maximizing fourth-order joint moments rather than variance, which preserves outlying samples that mark ignition events. This paper tests that idea a posteriori for the first time: instead of only reconstructing scalars from compressed principal components, it evolves the reduced ODE system in time from initial conditions using neural-network source terms. A standard ODE solver diverges because small source-term errors accumulate and shift the thermal runaway; a neural ODE solver that folds time integration into training stays stable. In spontaneous-ignition tests of ethylene-air and n-heptane-air mixtures, the CoK-PCA manifold outperforms PCA in the ignition zone for minor species and heat release rate, supporting its use in reduced-chemistry simulations of reacting flows.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CoK-PCA low-dimensional manifold, obtained by factorizing the fourth-order cumulant tensor of the Pareto-scaled thermochemical data via a simple higher-order singular value decomposition (HOSVD); the resulting orthonormal basis maximizes cokurtosis rather than variance. Time evolution of the retained principal components uses an artificial neural network to model the projected chemical source terms. The key numerical device is the neural ODE solver, which treats the ANN source-term model as the right-hand side of the reduced ODE system and trains it by backpropagating through the integrator via the adjoint method, so the learned source terms explicitly suppress error growth over time. A smaller mechanism is the shift to $\tilde{\eta}(t) = \eta(t) - \eta(t_0)$, which feeds the initial condition into the network and avoids convergence to suboptimal local minima when trajectories coincide.

What would settle it

Take the trained source-term network and the learned manifold and time-integrate a fuel or initial condition far outside the training distribution (for example, a methane-air case using the ethylene-trained network), then compare CoK-PCA and PCA ignition-zone errors for OH and heat release rate; if the CoK-PCA advantage does not persist, the ANN closure rather than the basis choice is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a CoK-PCA-based low-dimensional manifold, evolved in time with a neural ODE solver, captures the autoignition process accurately, and that it does so more faithfully than PCA for the stiff, chemistry-dominated part of the trajectory. Concretely, for homogeneous-reactor autoignition of ethylene-air (32 species) and n-heptane-air (88 species), the neural ODE solver produces non-divergent principal-component trajectories, while the standard ODE solver's trajectories diverge from the a priori profiles. Reconstructed species, temperature, and heat release rate from the CoK-PCA manifold match the full-chemistry reference well; in the ignition zone (progress variable between 0.05 and 0.95), CoK-PCA yields lower cumulative errors for minor species such as OH, HO2, CH2O, CH, and H2O2, and for the heat release rate, whereas PCA is better for major species and temperature over the full interval. The authors interpret this as evidence that the cokurtosis basis represents the chemical kinetics of the ignition zone more effectively than the variance-based PCA basis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the projected chemical source term, which genuinely depends on the full thermochemical state, can be captured by a neural network that sees only the retained principal components, and that this network will generalize to held-out states encountered during time integration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The neural ODE solver is the difference between divergence and stability: the standard ODE setup, whose source-term network is trained without time integration, produces divergent PC trajectories even on training configurations, while the neural ODE keeps evolved PCs close to the a priori profiles.
CoK-PCA manifolds with as few as five retained PCs (ethylene-air) and ten retained PCs (n-heptane-air) reproduce ignition delay, temperature, and heat release rate of the full chemistry.
In the ignition zone, CoK-PCA is more accurate than PCA for minor species and heat release rate, while PCA retains a small edge for major species and temperature over the full time interval.
The results support using CoK-PCA manifolds with neural ODE source terms inside reacting flow solvers, where chemistry evaluation is the dominant cost.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper stops at a homogeneous reactor, so a direct corollary is untested: coupling the CoK-PCA manifold with PC transport equations for diffusive and advective contributions would show whether the ignition-zone advantage survives in spatially evolving flames; the authors list this as future work.
Because the neural ODE stabilizes a PCA manifold as well, the comparison would be cleaner at higher truncation: running the ethylene-air case with more than five PCs would reveal whether CoK-PCA's edge is a property of aggressive truncation or of the cokurtosis basis itself.
Cokurtosis emphasises outliers, so the method should favour problems dominated by local ignition-kernel formation rather than near-equilibrium post-flame regions; a spatial DNS with temperature inhomogeneities would be a sharper test than the homogeneous reactor.
The Markovian ANN closure is the main risk: if trained and tested on different fuels or pressure regimes, the source-term network may not generalize, and the CoK-PCA advantage could vanish; a cross-fuel transfer experiment would quantify this.

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

Short version: this is the first a posteriori test of CoK-PCA for autoignition, with a neural-ODE solver and two fuels. That is genuinely new and the right next step. But the version of the neural ODE that actually works conditions the source-term network on the initial condition, so the paper has not yet demonstrated a state-local Markovian closure for the reduced manifold.

What’s good: they move beyond a priori reconstruction, evolve PCs in closed loop from initial conditions, compare against full Cantera chemistry, and hold out test configurations. The HRR and minor-species errors in the ignition zone mostly favor CoK-PCA for both fuels, consistent with the a priori story. They also report the failed sODE baseline rather than hiding it. The writing is clear about the modification in Sec. 3.3.

The soft spots are real. The successful nODE uses Eq. 5, where the source term is a function of both the shifted PC state and η(t0); during implementation these are concatenated. That breaks state locality: the source term in a DNS/LES cell cannot depend on a trajectory’s initial condition in any transferable way. The sODE, which is state-local, diverged for both methods, so every successful result in the paper depends on the non-local conditioning. For homogeneous reactors you know the initial condition, so the results stand as a demonstration for that setting; the abstract’s talk of robustness and implementation in massively parallel reacting-flow solvers goes beyond the evidence. A referee should ask for a Markovian-closure test, or see the claims narrowed to homogeneous reactors.

The error tables are also weaker than the text implies. One significant digit, no uncertainty estimates, ten test configurations per fuel. In Table 2 the statement that all minor species are better captured by CoK-PCA is not supported: OH and H2O are worse for several configurations. The HRR improvement is more consistent. The ‘farthest’ test-selection metric is not defined, and no code or data are shipped, so the exact numbers cannot be checked.

Bottom line: worth serious refereeing. It is a useful first closed-loop study with the right experimental design, but the closure issue and the overstatements need to be fixed before the central claim is accepted.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an a posteriori evaluation of CoK-PCA versus PCA for reduced-order modeling of autoignition in homogeneous reactors. Using Cantera-generated trajectories for ethylene-air and n-heptane-air mixtures, the authors project the thermochemical state onto five or ten principal components, train ANNs to approximate the projected chemical source terms, and integrate the PC ODEs with either a standard ODE solver (sODE) or a neural ODE solver (nODE). The sODE solutions diverge and are not analyzed further. For the nODE, which is trained by minimizing the error in the time-evolved PCs and uses the initial PC state as an additional network input, the authors report that CoK-PCA matches PCA for major species while giving lower errors for minor species and heat release rate in the ignition zone (Tabs. 2 and 3). The conclusions claim that CoK-PCA manifolds are robust and can be implemented in massively parallel reacting flow solvers.

Significance. If the results held in the form claimed, the paper would provide a useful step from a priori CoK-PCA studies to closed-loop reduced-chemistry simulations, since it demonstrates that a nonlinear reconstruction and an ANN source-term closure can be evolved for two very different fuels. The held-out test configurations and the use of full Cantera chemistry as a reference are genuine strengths, and the fact that the comparison is not fitted to the test data lowers the circularity burden. However, the support is weaker than the abstract states: the successful nODE variant is not a state-local closure, the sODE baseline is abandoned, and the error statistics are too coarse to establish the cross-fuel advantage. With those gaps closed, the result would be significant for the combustion-reduction community.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 3.3, Eq. (5)] The nODE solver that produces all reported successful results is not Markovian in the reduced state. Equation (5) defines the learned source term as a function of both \tilde{η}(t) and η(t0), and the implementation concatenates these two inputs to the ANN. In a homogeneous reactor every trajectory has a known initial condition, so the network can use η(t0) to disambiguate trajectories and compensate for unresolved PC dynamics. In a DNS/LES cell there is no global initial condition attached to a local thermochemical state, and the source term must depend on the current PCs alone. The sODE variant, which uses only current PCs, diverges (Sec. 4.1), which is consistent with the possibility that the CoK-PCA/nODE accuracy is enabled by the initial-condition input rather than by a transferable manifold closure. I therefore do not consider the abstract claim of robustness and the conclusions about massively parallel solvers to be fully supported by the experiments as presented. A state-only nODE (or a demonstration that the η(t0) input is not load-bearing) is needed.
[Sec. 4.1] The comparison underlying the claim that nODE 'provided more accurate results than the standard ODE solver' is incomplete. The sODE baseline is reported to diverge for both PCA and CoK-PCA and is then dropped, but no information is given about hyperparameter tuning for sODE, the magnitude of the divergence, or whether the same modification (e.g., learning shifted variables) could stabilize it. Without a functioning sODE baseline, the paper cannot support the conclusion that nODE is more accurate; it only shows that the particular sODE setup, under the reported training protocol, was unstable. The nODE advantage should be quantified against the best available state-only or standard training baseline.
[Tabs. 2-3] The cross-fuel claim that CoK-PCA improves the representation of minor species and HRR in the ignition zone rests on error tables with only one significant digit and no measure of uncertainty. For example, in Table 3 the OH row favors PCA at T=1207 K, φ=0.59 (1e-02 vs 2e-02) while favoring CoK-PCA at T=1250 K, φ=0.58 (2e-02 vs 1e-02); with only ten test configurations per fuel, entry-wise comparisons at this precision are not robust evidence of a systematic advantage. The authors should report errors with at least two significant digits, include per-configuration or bootstrap statistics, and state a criterion for 'better' that aggregates rows rather than relying on visual inspection.
[Secs. 4.1-4.2] The selection of test configurations is described only as 'farthest from the training and validation sets,' and the reduced dimension is set to nq=5 or 10 without sensitivity analysis. Both choices are free parameters that can affect the relative performance of PCA and CoK-PCA. At minimum, the paper should define the distance used for selecting test points and report whether the ignition-zone conclusions persist for adjacent values of nq; this is needed because the central claim is about the general robustness of the CoK-PCA manifold rather than about a single tuned truncation.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 1] The phrase 'a neural ODE approach to model integrate the differential equations' should be reworded, e.g., 'model and integrate the differential equations.'
[Figure 6] The n-heptane figure appears to contain duplicated temperature and HRR subplots; if this is an artifact, the duplicates should be removed, and if the panels are distinct, the figure should be clarified.
[Sec. 4.1] The statement that 'the first two PCs are identical for both PCA and CoK-PCA' requires a brief explanation, since the PCA and CoK-PCA projection matrices are obtained by different decompositions; the reader needs to know whether this is an exact equality for the test configuration or a consequence of the scaling and ordering of the PCs.
[Sec. 4.1] The definition of ϵ divides by max_i |u(t_i)|, but it is not stated whether the a priori and a posteriori profiles are sampled on the same time grid; please specify the interpolation and alignment used for the comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the CoK-PCA vs PCA comparison is evaluated against full Cantera chemistry on held-out configurations; the only notable self-citation is a minor hyperparameter choice (nq=5 from [16]).

other [Sec. 4.1, first paragraph: 'After obtaining the principal components (PCs), the dimensionality of the LDMs is set to nq = 5 [16].']
"After obtaining the principal components (PCs), the dimensionality of the LDMs is set to nq = 5 [16]."

The reduced dimension nq is imported from the same authors' prior CoK-PCA paper [16] rather than derived or independently re-validated in this work. This is a self-citation, but it is minor and not load-bearing for the central claim: the PCA vs CoK-PCA comparison is still measured against full Cantera chemistry on test configurations held out from training, and the nheptane case uses nq=10 without citing [16]. The choice of nq does not by construction force the reported ignition-zone advantage.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is self-contained. The CoK-PCA and PCA manifolds are computed from Cantera-generated training data, and the ANN source-term and reconstruction models are trained on training configurations and evaluated on held-out test configurations (Secs. 4.1-4.2). The error metric epsilon(u) compares reconstructed scalars and heat-release rate against full Cantera solutions, so the claimed reaction-zone advantage of CoK-PCA is an external comparison rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The nODE loss minimizing errors in the evolved PCs is a training objective, and the observation that nODE does not diverge is partly a restatement of that objective; however, because the reported results include test configurations held out from training, the success is not logically forced. The modified nODE with eta(t0) as an extra input raises a generalization concern for future DNS/LES use, but that is a validity risk, not circularity: the model is not defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict. Overall circularity is low, with only a minor self-citation for the nq=5 hyperparameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The paper relies on a truncated linear subspace, ANN source-term models and prior choices of manifold dimension; the free parameters listed above are the main extra inputs.

free parameters (4)

Reduced dimension nq (ethylene-air) = 5
Chosen as nq=5 citing [16]; not derived in this paper. The PCA and CoK-PCA comparison depends on this truncation.
Reduced dimension nq (nheptane-air) = 10
Chosen as nq=10; not derived in this paper. The comparison depends on this truncation.
ANN source-term architecture and hyperparameters = not reported
Tuned on a validation subset using HyperTuning.jl, but layers, units, activations, batch size, epochs and learning-rate schedule are not reported. All error results depend on these choices.
Test configuration selection = 10 'farthest' configurations
The paper does not define the distance metric used to choose test configurations, so the stress test is not reproducible.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The truncated PC basis and the ANN source-term closure remain valid for held-out initial conditions near the training distribution
Introduced in Sec. 2 and used in Secs. 3.2 to 4. The subspace is built from 13 or 33 training trajectories and then used for test trajectories.
domain assumption Cantera detailed-chemistry solutions are the ground truth for autoignition
Sec. 4 uses Cantera profiles as 'Actual' for all error computations.
standard math Factorizing the fourth-order cumulant tensor by HOSVD gives a useful orthogonal basis for stiff combustion states
Adopted from [14] and [15] in Sec. 2.2; treated as established.
domain assumption The numerical integrators (AutoTsit5 and Rosenbrock23) and adjoint method (BacksolveAdjoint) compute gradients accurately for stiff PC ODEs
Sec. 4 implementation paragraph; no verification of adjoint accuracy is reported.
domain assumption ANN reconstruction of thermochemical scalars from PCs is accurate enough not to dominate the reported errors
Reconstruction ANNs are trained separately; their accuracy is not reported separately from source-term errors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An a-posteriori analysis of co-kurtosis PCA based dimensionality reduction using a neural ODE solver." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZP5NQTN

@misc{pith2026250102797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An a-posteriori analysis of co-kurtosis PCA based dimensionality reduction using a neural ODE solver},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZP5NQTN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02797}
}

read the original abstract

A low-dimensional representation of thermochemical scalars based on cokurtosis principal component analysis (CoK-PCA) has been shown to effectively capture stiff chemical dynamics in reacting flows relative to the widely used principal component analysis (PCA). The effectiveness of the reduced manifold was evaluated in a priori analyses using both linear and nonlinear reconstructions of thermochemical scalars from aggressively truncated principal components (PCs). In this study, we demonstrate the efficacy of a CoK-PCA-based reduced manifold using a posteriori analysis. Simulations of spontaneous ignition in a homogeneous reactor that pose a challenge in accurately capturing the ignition delay time as well as the scalar profiles within the reaction zone are considered. The governing ordinary differential equations (ODEs) in the PC space were evolved from the initial conditions using two ODE solvers. First, a standard ODE solver that uses a pre-trained artificial neural network (ANN) to estimate the source terms and integrates the solution in time. Second, a neural ODE solver that incorporates the time integration of PCs into the ANN training. The time-evolved profiles of the PCs and reconstructed thermochemical scalars demonstrate the robustness of the CoK-PCA-based low-dimensional manifold in accurately capturing the ignition process. Furthermore, we observed that the neural ODE solver minimized propagation errors across time steps and provided more accurate results than the standard ODE solver. The results of this study demonstrate the potential of CoK-PCA-based manifolds to be implemented in massively parallel reacting flow solvers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02797 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Schematic of ANN training to predict the source terms ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Trajectories of the first and third PCs for one of the training configurations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Temporal profiles of PCs from PCA (top row) and CoK-PCA (bottom row) based LDMs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Temporal profiles of mass fractions of C2H4, OH, and H2O, temperature (T) and heat release rate (HRR). (Black) actual profiles computed using Cantera. (Magenta) and (Cyan) are reconstructed profiles based on PCA and CoK-PCA LDMs, respectively. As previously mentioned, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

J. C. Sutherland, A. Parente, Combustion modeling using principal compo- nent analysis, Proc. Combust. Inst. 32 (2009) 1563–1570

work page 2009
[2]

Biglari, J

A. Biglari, J. C. Sutherland, A filter-independent model identification tech- nique for turbulent combustion modeling, Combust. Flame. 159 (2012) 1960–1970

work page 2012
[3]

Mirgolbabaei, T

H. Mirgolbabaei, T. Echekki, A novel principal component analysis-based acceleration scheme for les–odt: An a priori study, Combust. Flame. 160 (2013) 898–908

work page 2013
[4]

Coussement, B

A. Coussement, B. J. Isaac, O. Gicquel, A. Parente, Assessment of dif- ferent chemistry reduction methods based on principal component analysis: Comparison of the mg-pca and score-pca approaches, Combust. Flame. 168 (2016) 83–97. 14

work page 2016
[5]

D. K. Dalakoti, A. Wehrfritz, B. Savard, M. S. Day, J. B. Bell, E. R. Hawkes, An a priori evaluation of a principal component and artificial neural network based combustion model in diesel engine conditions, Proc. Combust. Inst. 38 (2021) 2701–2709

work page 2021
[6]

Zdybał, G

K. Zdybał, G. D’Alessio, A. Attili, A. Coussement, J. C. Sutherland, A. Par- ente, Local manifold learning and its link to domain-based physics knowl- edge, Appl. Energy Combust. Sci. 14 (2023) 100131

work page 2023
[7]

Echekki, H

T. Echekki, H. Mirgolbabaei, Principal component transport in turbulent combustion: A posteriori analysis, Combust. Flame. 162 (2015) 1919–1933

work page 2015
[8]

Biglari, J

A. Biglari, J. C. Sutherland, An a-posteriori evaluation of principal compo- nent analysis-based models for turbulent combustion simulations, Combust. Flame. 162 (2015) 4025–4035

work page 2015

Show all 29 references

[9]

Kumar, M

A. Kumar, M. Rieth, O. Owoyele, J. H. Chen, T. Echekki, Acceleration of turbulent combustion dns via principal component transport, Combust. Flame. 255 (2023) 112903

2023
[10]

M. R. Malik, P. O. Vega, A. Coussement, A. Parente, Combustion modeling using principal component analysis: A posteriori validation on sandia flames d, e and f, Proc. Combust. Inst. 38 (2021) 2635–2643

2021
[11]

Armstrong, J

E. Armstrong, J. C. Sutherland, Reduced-order modeling with reconstruction-informed projections, Combust. Flame. 259 (2024) 113119

2024
[12]

M. R. Malik, R. M. Galassi, M. Valorani, H. G. Im, A combined pca-csp solver for dimensionality and stiffness reduction in reacting flow simula- tions, Proc. Combust. Inst. 40 (2024) 105532

2024
[13]

Abdelwahid, M

S. Abdelwahid, M. R. Malik, H. A. Al Kader Hammoud, F. E. Hern ´andez- P´erez, B. Ghanem, H. G. Im, Large eddy simulations of ammonia-hydrogen jet flames at elevated pressure using principal component analysis and deep neural networks, Combust. Flame. 253 (2023) 112781

2023
[14]

Aditya, H

K. Aditya, H. Kolla, W. P. Kegelmeyer, T. M. Shead, J. Ling, W. L. Davis IV , Anomaly detection in scientific data using joint statistical moments, J. Com- put. Phys. 387 (2019) 522–538. 15

2019
[15]

Jonnalagadda, S

A. Jonnalagadda, S. Kulkarni, A. Rodhiya, H. Kolla, K. Aditya, A co- kurtosis based dimensionality reduction method for combustion datasets, Combust. Flame. 250 (2023) 112635

2023
[16]

Nayak, A

D. Nayak, A. Jonnalagadda, U. Balakrishnan, H. Kolla, K. Aditya, A co- kurtosis pca based dimensionality reduction with nonlinear reconstruction using neural networks, Combust. Flame. 259 (2024) 113192

2024
[17]

Owoyele, T

O. Owoyele, T. Echekki, Toward computationally efficient combustion dns with complex fuels via principal component transport, Combust. Theory Model. 21 (2017) 770–798

2017
[18]

R. T. Q. Chen, Y . Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, D. Duvenaud, Neural ordinary differential equations, in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’18, Curran Asso- ciates Inc., Red Hook, NY , USA, 2018, p. 6572–6583

2018
[19]

H. E. Dikeman, H. Zhang, S. Yang, Stiffness-reduced neural ode models for data-driven reduced-order modeling of combustion chemical kinetics, in: AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum, 2022, p. 0226

2022
[20]

S. Kim, W. Ji, S. Deng, Y . Ma, C. Rackauckas, Stiff neural ordinary differ- ential equations, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 31 (2021)

2021
[21]

Owoyele, P

O. Owoyele, P. Pal, Chemnode: A neural ordinary differential equations framework for efficient chemical kinetic solvers, Energy and AI 7 (2022) 100118

2022
[22]

D. G. Goodwin, H. K. Moffat, I. Schoegl, R. L. Speth, B. W. Weber, Cantera: An Object-oriented Software Toolkit for Chemical Kinetics, Thermodynam- ics, and Transport Processes, 2023

2023
[23]

Bezanson, A

J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, V . B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM review 59 (2017) 65–98

2017
[24]

Rackauckas, Q

C. Rackauckas, Q. Nie, DifferentialEquations.jl–a performant and feature- rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in Julia, J. Open Res. Softw. 5 (2017). 16

2017
[25]

Innes, Flux: Elegant machine learning with julia, J

M. Innes, Flux: Elegant machine learning with julia, J. Open Source Softw. (2018). doi:10.21105/joss.00602

2018 doi
[26]

Rackauckas, Y

C. Rackauckas, Y . Ma, J. Martensen, C. Warner, K. Zubov, R. Supekar, D. Skinner, A. Ramadhan, Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[27]

Mej ´ıa-de Dios, E

J.-A. Mej ´ıa-de Dios, E. Mezura-Montes, M. Quiroz-Castellanos, Automated parameter tuning as a bilevel optimization problem solved by a surrogate- assisted population-based approach, Applied Intelligence 51 (2021) 5978– 6000

2021
[28]

Z. Luo, C. S. Yoo, E. S. Richardson, J. H. Chen, C. K. Law, T. Lu, Chemical explosive mode analysis for a turbulent lifted ethylene jet flame in highly- heated coflow, Combust. Flame. 159 (2012) 265–274

2012
[29]

C. S. Yoo, T. Lu, J. H. Chen, C. K. Law, Direct numerical simulations of ignition of a lean n-heptane/air mixture with temperature inhomogeneities at constant volume: Parametric study, Combust. Flame. 158 (2011) 1727– 1741. 17

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. C. Sutherland, A. Parente, Combustion modeling using principal compo- nent analysis, Proc. Combust. Inst. 32 (2009) 1563–1570

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Biglari, J

A. Biglari, J. C. Sutherland, A filter-independent model identification tech- nique for turbulent combustion modeling, Combust. Flame. 159 (2012) 1960–1970

work page 2012

[3] [3]

Mirgolbabaei, T

H. Mirgolbabaei, T. Echekki, A novel principal component analysis-based acceleration scheme for les–odt: An a priori study, Combust. Flame. 160 (2013) 898–908

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Coussement, B

A. Coussement, B. J. Isaac, O. Gicquel, A. Parente, Assessment of dif- ferent chemistry reduction methods based on principal component analysis: Comparison of the mg-pca and score-pca approaches, Combust. Flame. 168 (2016) 83–97. 14

work page 2016

[5] [5]

D. K. Dalakoti, A. Wehrfritz, B. Savard, M. S. Day, J. B. Bell, E. R. Hawkes, An a priori evaluation of a principal component and artificial neural network based combustion model in diesel engine conditions, Proc. Combust. Inst. 38 (2021) 2701–2709

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Zdybał, G

K. Zdybał, G. D’Alessio, A. Attili, A. Coussement, J. C. Sutherland, A. Par- ente, Local manifold learning and its link to domain-based physics knowl- edge, Appl. Energy Combust. Sci. 14 (2023) 100131

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Echekki, H

T. Echekki, H. Mirgolbabaei, Principal component transport in turbulent combustion: A posteriori analysis, Combust. Flame. 162 (2015) 1919–1933

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Biglari, J

A. Biglari, J. C. Sutherland, An a-posteriori evaluation of principal compo- nent analysis-based models for turbulent combustion simulations, Combust. Flame. 162 (2015) 4025–4035

work page 2015