Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 119 references

Point Cloud Neural Operator for Parametric PDEs on Complex and Variable Geometries

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper proposes the Point Cloud Neural Operator (PCNO), a point-cloud neural layer that approximates the solution map of parametric PDEs on complex and variable geometries, with a universal approximation theorem and reported relative…

desk verdict A practical point-cloud neural operator with strong empirical breadth and public code; the universal approximation proof only covers full-dimensional domains, so the 3D surface/curve results rest on experiments, not the theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14475 v3 pith:PJOI7DUR submitted 2025-01-24 math.NA cs.NA

Chenyu Zeng , Yanshu Zhang , Jiayi Zhou , Yuhan Wang , Zilin Wang , Yuhao Liu , Lei Wu , Daniel Zhengyu Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N9968T07
keywords neuraloperatorpointcloudparametricPDEvariablegeometrydensity-weightedintegraldiscretizationinvariancesurrogatemodelinguniversalapproximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a neural operator can be defined directly on point clouds and still approximate the solution map $(a,\Omega) \mapsto u$ of parametric PDEs on complex, variable, even topologically changing geometries. The proposed Point Cloud Neural Operator (PCNO) builds each layer from three pieces: a pointwise linear map, a density-weighted Fourier integral over the domain, and a SoftSign-smoothed least-squares gradient. The paper argues this continuous-level design makes the operator permutation invariant, discretization robust, and linear in the number of points, and proves a universal approximation theorem under bounded Lipschitz domain assumptions. If correct, PCNO gives a single surrogate architecture that works across mesh resolutions, adaptive meshes, and surface and line geometries without per-problem retuning. The paper reports relative L2 test errors of 0.167 percent and 0.683 percent on the 1D and 2D benchmarks, 1.83 percent on the airfoil flow, about 7 percent on vehicle surface pressures, and 3.03 percent on parachute inflation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the point cloud neural layer (Eq. 21), defined as $$f_{\rm out}(x)=\$\sigma$\left(W^l f_{\rm in}(x)+b+\sum_k \int_\$\Omega$ $e^{{2\pi i k\cdot(x-y)/L}}$ W^v_k f_{\rm in}(y)\rho(y;\$\Omega$)\,dy+W^g\,\mathrm{SoftSign}(\nabla f_{\rm in}(x))\right).$$ It does three jobs at once: the pointwise linear map supplies local channel mixing, the density-weighted Fourier integral supplies global translation-structured information while $\rho(y;\Omega)$ normalizes the average over an arbitrary point cloud, and the gradient term supplies local differential information, with the gradient computed by least squares over mesh neighbors and projected into the tangent space via truncated SVD for submanifolds. The density is either uniform $1/|\Omega|$ or the empirical point-cloud density, and choosing between them trades adaptivity information against consistency across meshes. The universal approximation proof routes through zero-extending inputs to a bounding box and approximating continuous functionals with the layer, building on a nonlocal neural operator approximation theorem.

What would settle it

Train PCNO on a parametric family of domains in which one dimension shrinks to zero, so the point cloud approaches a surface embedded in 3D while the density stays formally positive; if the relative L2 test error diverges as the thickness decreases, the practical robustness rests on the full-dimensional assumption rather than on the point-cloud formulation itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the solution map $G^\dagger:(a,\Omega)\mapsto u$ can be approximated by a point cloud neural layer of the form given in Eq. (21), where the integral is weighted by a density $\rho(y;\Omega)$ so that the operator does not scale with the domain volume, the Fourier kernel $e^{2\pi i k\cdot(x-y)/L}$ uses learnable length scales $L$, and the gradient is estimated by a least-squares fit over point-cloud neighbors, with a truncated SVD when $\Omega$ is a submanifold and with SoftSign applied to handle discontinuities. The network input is $[a(x), x, \rho(x;\Omega)]$, so geometry is encoded through coordinates and density. The paper proves permutation invariance, linear inference complexity in the number of points, and universal approximation in $L^p$ over compact sets of bounded inputs, with the theoretical statement going through a zero-extension to a bounding box while the implementation operates only on $\Omega$. The numerical section supports the claim across five test problems, including adaptively meshed, topologically varying, and large-scale three-dimensional geometries.

Load-bearing premise

The universal approximation guarantee assumes every domain is full-dimensional with a Lipschitz boundary and a density bounded away from zero, and it goes through a zero-extension to a bounding box; the implementation instead runs directly on point clouds, including surfaces and curves, so the practical claims rest on that gap being harmless.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PCNO reaches relative L2 test errors of 0.167 percent on the 1D advection-diffusion problem and 0.683 percent on the 2D Darcy flow problem, with error falling roughly as $O(n^{-1/2})$ as training samples grow even when training and test meshes have different resolutions.
  • For the airfoil problem, the same architecture trained on a mixture of single-airfoil and airfoil-with-flap domains reaches 1.83 percent error, showing topology changes can be handled inside one model, although training on one topology alone does not transfer to the other.
  • On vehicle surface meshes with up to about 100k points, PCNO predicts pressure to roughly 7 percent relative L2 error and runs inference in about 0.17 seconds per instance, compared with hours for a GPU-accelerated solver.
  • The universal approximation theorem implies that any continuous solution operator on bounded Lipschitz domains can be approximated to arbitrary $L^p$ accuracy, provided the density is bounded below and the zero-extension to a bounding box is used.
  • The same architecture and hyperparameters transfer across all five test problems without per-problem tuning, because the integral and differential operators are discretized with standard numerical tools at the continuous level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The density $\rho$ can be read as a quadrature weight: when $\rho$ is the empirical point-cloud density, the integral is a Monte Carlo estimate, so PCNO should extend to point clouds generated by unknown non-uniform samplers if that density is estimated consistently.
  • The theory and the implementation diverge: Theorem 3 assumes full-dimensional Lipschitz domains and positive density, while the vehicle and parachute tests live on surfaces and curves, so a natural testable extension is to prove the same approximation result with density and gradient restricted to the tangent space of a $d'$-dimensional submanifold.
  • The airfoil result that one topology does not transfer to another suggests PCNO interpolates within a topology family rather than learning a fully shared geometric representation; coupling the layer with a learned deformation or signed-distance field might close that transfer gap.
  • The observed error scaling changes from $O(n^{-1/2})$ to $O(n^{-1/5})$ when shocks appear, suggesting sample complexity depends on solution regularity; a rigorous sample-complexity analysis could predict when each rate should be expected.
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. The paper introduces the Point Cloud Neural Operator (PCNO), a neural operator designed to approximate solution maps (a, Omega) -> u for parametric PDEs on complex and variable geometries represented as point clouds. The proposed layer (Eq. 21) combines a pointwise linear map, a density-weighted Fourier integral operator, and a SoftSign-smoothed least-squares gradient, with a lifting layer and projection layer wrapping several such layers. The paper claims point-permutation invariance, linear inference complexity, and universal approximation at the continuous level, and backs these claims with Theorem 1, Theorem 2, and Theorem 3. Numerical experiments cover 1D advection-diffusion, 2D Darcy flow, 2D Euler flow over airfoils with topology variations, 3D vehicle surface pressure prediction (ShapeNet and Ahmed body), and 3D parachute inflation dynamics, reporting relative L2 test errors below 2% on the geometry benchmarks and around 3-7% on the 3D applications. The code and datasets are publicly available.

Significance. If the claims hold, PCNO would be a practically useful surrogate for parametric PDEs on variable geometries, with a clean continuous-level formulation that separates integral and differential operators and uses standard numerical discretizations. The empirical study is broad, covers geometrically challenging applications, and is accompanied by public code and datasets, which are concrete strengths. The theoretical results are standard in style but are stated precisely for full-dimensional domains with Lipschitz boundaries and positive densities. The main significance risk is that the universal approximation theorem does not cover the low-dimensional manifold cases that the paper explicitly targets, so the theoretical underpinning for the headline 3D applications is currently missing; the paper's claims for those applications rest on the empirical results alone.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 3 and Appendix B] The universal approximation proof does not cover the low-dimensional manifold case that the paper explicitly targets. The proof embeds Omega into a bounding hypercube B and zero-extends both the input and solution (Eq. 28), then approximates the extended operator in Lp(B) (Eq. B.5). If Omega is a 2D surface or a 1D curve in R^3, its d-dimensional Lebesgue measure is zero, so every extended function is zero almost everywhere in B; consequently the Lp(B) norm in (B.5) carries no information about values on Omega, and the restriction step 'the restriction on Omega gives (29)' is invalid for measure-zero domains. Section 3 states that Omega can be a low-dimensional manifold, and Sections 5.4 and 5.5 apply PCNO to vehicle surfaces and parachute canopies and lines. Since Theorem 3 explicitly assumes Omega is full-dimensional with a Lipschitz boundary, the universal approximation claim for the headline applications is unproven. The paper should either extend Theorem 3 to intrinsic submanifold measures (for example, by working with the Riemannian measure on Omega and the appropriate Lp space), or explicitly restrict the theoretical claim to full-dimensional domains and present the manifold results as empirical evidence.
  2. [Section 3.2 (Eq. 17)] The truncated SVD construction for the gradient operator uses a rank d' equal to the intrinsic dimension, but the manuscript does not state how d' is determined in practice. For the vehicle surface (Section 5.4) and the parachute geometry (Section 5.5), the point clouds are non-uniform and may contain edges or seams where the local rank is ambiguous; without a concrete rule for d', the gradient operator is not fully specified, and the permutation invariance of Theorem 1 implicitly depends on the connectivity and the chosen d' being consistently permuted. Please describe the implementation choice for d'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1.1 and Section 5] The statement that 'all tests presented in this work utilize the same architecture and identical hyperparameters, such as the number of channels and network depth' is contradicted by Section 5, where the truncated Fourier mode count varies across experiments (64 in Section 5.1, 16 in Sections 5.2-5.4, 8 for the Ahmed body, 12 in Section 5.5) and the base learning rate gamma is stated to be tuned per experiment. Please clarify that the fixed choices are the architecture widths and number of layers, while the Fourier mode count, learning rate, and length scale are problem-dependent.
  2. [Section 5.4] The comparison with GINO and GNO reports only that PCNO 'outperforms' those baselines, without giving the baseline errors, training set sizes, or hyperparameter settings used in [79]. Adding a quantitative comparison table would make the claim reproducible.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Figure 4] The claim that test errors scale as O(n^{-1/2}) is based on three training sizes (500, 1000, 1500) with single runs; reporting the fitted exponents or adding error bars from repeated seeds would make the scaling claim more convincing.
  4. [Section 5.5] The density definitions rho_1 = 1/(2|Omega_1|) and rho_2 = 1/(2|Omega_2|) are used for overlapping 1D and 2D domains, but the manuscript does not explain how the overlapping regions are treated in the point-cloud implementation, in particular how points that belong to both Omega_1 and Omega_2 contribute to the two integral terms in Eq. (32). Please clarify the overlap handling.
  5. [Appendix C] The footnote stating 'We train the FNO using the same configuration as PCNO, achieving errors that are an order of magnitude smaller than those reported in [31]' is confusing because the table lists FNO errors that appear to be the original values from [31]. Please clarify which FNO results are reproduced and which are newly trained, and ensure the reported values are consistent.
  6. [Sections 5.4 and 5.5] The experiments are reported from single training runs, and the noticeable gap between training and test error in the vehicle and parachute experiments suggests variance across seeds. Reporting means and standard deviations over at least three seeds would strengthen the empirical conclusions and help assess the outlier behavior discussed in these sections.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PCNO's targets come from independent solvers, and its universal approximation proof adapts external theorems rather than assuming its own conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The targets u in every experiment are produced by independent solvers (finite differences for Section 5.1, FEM/Gmsh for Section 5.2, AERO-Suite for Sections 5.3 and 5.5, and the ShapeNet/OpenFOAM datasets of [79] for Section 5.4), and all reported errors are measured on held-out test samples, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The universal approximation claim (Theorem 3) is not derived from PCNO's own output: it is an adaptation of the external theorem [100, Theorem 2.2] by Lanthaler, Li and Stuart, using their Lemma 1 and a modified Lemma A.9; the proof constructs the approximating PCNO from basis coefficients and neural approximations of continuous functionals, which are standard ingredients rather than the conclusion being assumed. The density rho(x;Omega) is an architectural input encoding geometry and adaptivity, and it is not fitted to the solution u, so there is no self-definitional loop. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [59], [95], [107], [115]) are background context or data-generation references and are not load-bearing for the central approximation theorem. One genuine caveat is that Theorem 3 assumes full-dimensional Omega with Lipschitz boundary and zero-extension to a bounding box, whereas the vehicle and parachute experiments use 2D/1D manifolds; this is a coverage gap in the proof, not circularity, because the experimental claims rest on independent hold-out error measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entity is postulated; the density function and SoftSign gradient are components of the architecture rather than new natural phenomena. The central result rests on inherited assumptions: accurate solver-generated labels, valid mesh connectivity and density estimates, standard universal approximation theorems, and regularity assumptions on the domain that are not satisfied by the surface and curve applications.

free parameters (5)
  • Neural network weights and biases = Learned on each training set
    PCNO's predictive map is parameterized by trained weights; the central performance claims depend on these fitted values, which is standard for surrogate modeling.
  • Fourier mode truncation kmax = 64 in 1D, 16 in 2D and ShapeNet, 8 for Ahmed body, 12 for parachute
    Chosen per experiment under memory constraints; the authors note that increasing kmax generally reduces test error, so the results depend on this hyperparameter.
  • Base learning rate gamma = Tuned per experiment; exact values not reported
    The OneCycleLR schedule and base learning rate vary across experiments, so the reported accuracies are not fully hyperparameter-free.
  • Density function rho = Uniform for advection, Darcy, and vehicles; point cloud density for airfoil; split uniform for parachute
    The choice of density is made per problem based on observed performance, and the authors show point cloud density can hurt when the adaptive strategy is inconsistent.
  • Learnable length scales L = Learnable with a separate base learning rate; initial values not specified
    The length scales appear in the Fourier kernel in Eq. (21), and the final performance can depend on their initialization and learning schedule.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Continuous operator approximation theorem of Lanthaler, Li, and Stuart (Ref. [100]) is valid and applicable.
    Theorem 3 is proven by direct appeal to Lemmas A.8 and A.9 of Ref. [100].
  • domain assumption Domains Ω are bounded, full-dimensional, have Lipschitz boundary, and the density satisfies inf ρ(x;Ω) > 0.
    These hypotheses appear in Theorem 3 but are violated by the 3D surface applications and the line elements in the parachute model.
  • domain assumption Zero extension to a bounding hypercube B reconstructs Ω through the indicator function and preserves operator continuity on a compact set KB.
    Used in Theorem 3 and Appendix B; the implementation never constructs B, so the universal approximation proof applies to an idealized version of the method.
  • domain assumption Mesh connectivity and mesh size estimates from Gmsh, AERO-Suite, and OpenFOAM are accurate enough for the least-squares gradient and density weights.
    The gradient and density in Eqs. (14) through (19) rely on neighbor sets and mesh size estimates that are not part of the learned network.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth solutions from finite difference, finite element, and RANS solvers are treated as exact.
    All reported errors are measured against solver outputs, and solver discretization error is not quantified.
  • standard math Classical results on neural network approximation of continuous functions on compact sets and of multiplication hold.
    Used in Appendix B to approximate Lp functions and the product α_j η_j.
  • domain assumption Point cloud preprocessing permutes connectivity, edge weights, densities, and mesh sizes consistently with the points.
    The permutation invariance argument in Theorem 1 requires a deterministic ordering convention in the preprocessing pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Point Cloud Neural Operator for Parametric PDEs on Complex and Variable Geometries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJOI7DUR

@misc{pith2026250114475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Point Cloud Neural Operator for Parametric PDEs on Complex and Variable Geometries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJOI7DUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14475}
}
read the original abstract

Surrogate models are critical for accelerating computationally expensive simulations in science and engineering, particularly for solving parametric partial differential equations (PDEs). Developing practical surrogate models poses significant challenges, particularly in handling geometrically complex and variable domains, which are often discretized as point clouds. In this work, we systematically investigate the formulation of neural operators -- maps between infinite-dimensional function spaces -- on point clouds to better handle complex and variable geometries while mitigating discretization effects. We introduce the Point Cloud Neural Operator (PCNO), designed to efficiently approximate solution maps of parametric PDEs on such domains. We evaluate the performance of PCNO on a range of pedagogical PDE problems, focusing on aspects such as boundary layers, adaptively meshed point clouds, and variable domains with topological variations. Its practicality is further demonstrated through three-dimensional applications, such as predicting pressure loads on various vehicle types and simulating the inflation process of intricate parachute structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the Point Cloud Neural Operator (PCNO): Starting with input function [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Advection diffusion problem: From left to right, the panels display the source field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Advection diffusion problem: The relative training and test errors over epochs (left) and the distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Advection diffusion problem: The relative test errors of PCNO with uniform density and point cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Darcy flow problem: The relative training and test errors over epochs (left) and the distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Darcy flow problem: From left to right, the panels display the permeability field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Darcy flow problem: The relative test errors of PCNO trained on different datasets (Fine, Coarse, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flow over airfoil: The relative training and test errors over epochs (left) and the distribution of the test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Flow over airfoil: From left to right, the panels display the input mesh representing Ω, the reference solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Flow over airfoil: The relative test errors of PCNO trained on different configurations, single-airfoil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ShapeNet car test: The relative training and test errors over iterations (left) and the distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ahmed body test: The relative training and test errors over iterations (left) and the distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ShapeNet car test: From left to right, the panels display the reference surface pressure load [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ahmed body test: From left to right, the panels display the reference surface pressure load [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Parachute dynamics: The relative training and test errors over epochs (left) and the distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Parachute Dynamics: From left to right, the panels display the design shape, and the inflation shape at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Parachute Dynamics: From left to right, the panels display the design shape, and the inflation shape at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Parachute Dynamics: From left to right, the panels display the design shape, and the inflation shape at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aerodynamic design via control theory

    Antony Jameson. Aerodynamic design via control theory. Journal of scientific computing , 3:233–260, 1988

    1988

  2. [2]

    Surrogate model-based opti- mization framework: a case study in aerospace design

    Yolanda Mack, Tushar Goel, Wei Shyy, and Raphael Haftka. Surrogate model-based opti- mization framework: a case study in aerospace design. Evolutionary computation in dynamic and uncertain environments , pages 323–342, 2007

    2007

  3. [3]

    Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures

    Joaquim RRA Martins and Andrew B Lambe. Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA journal , 51(9):2049–2075, 2013

    2013

  4. [4]

    Topology optimization: theory, methods, and ap- plications

    Martin Philip Bendsoe and Ole Sigmund. Topology optimization: theory, methods, and ap- plications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    Design optimization using hyper-reduced-order models

    David Amsallem, Matthew Zahr, Youngsoo Choi, and Charbel Farhat. Design optimization using hyper-reduced-order models. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , 51(4):919– 940, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Su2: An open-source suite for multiphysics simulation and design

    Thomas D Economon, Francisco Palacios, Sean R Copeland, Trent W Lukaczyk, and Juan J Alonso. Su2: An open-source suite for multiphysics simulation and design. Aiaa Journal , 54(3):828–846, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Rapid airfoil design optimization via neu- ral networks-based parameterization and surrogate modeling

    Xiaosong Du, Ping He, and Joaquim RRA Martins. Rapid airfoil design optimization via neu- ral networks-based parameterization and surrogate modeling. Aerospace Science and Tech- nology, 113:106701, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey

    Carlos E Garcia, David M Prett, and Manfred Morari. Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey. Automatica, 25(3):335–348, 1989

    1989

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    A survey of recent trends in multiobjective optimal control—surrogate models, feedback control and objective reduction

    Sebastian Peitz and Michael Dellnitz. A survey of recent trends in multiobjective optimal control—surrogate models, feedback control and objective reduction. Mathematical and com- putational applications, 23(2):30, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Linear predictors for nonlinear dynamical systems: Koopman operator meets model predictive control

    Milan Korda and Igor Mezi´ c. Linear predictors for nonlinear dynamical systems: Koopman operator meets model predictive control. Automatica, 93:149–160, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    A probabilistic graphical model foundation for enabling predictive digital twins at scale.Nature Computational Science, 1(5):337–347, 2021

    Michael G Kapteyn, Jacob VR Pretorius, and Karen E Willcox. A probabilistic graphical model foundation for enabling predictive digital twins at scale.Nature Computational Science, 1(5):337–347, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    A physics-based digital twin for model predictive control of autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle landing

    Andrew McClellan, Joseph Lorenzetti, Marco Pavone, and Charbel Farhat. A physics-based digital twin for model predictive control of autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle landing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , 380(2229):20210204, 2022. 37 Figure D.19: Sample ...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice

    Walter R Gilks, Sylvia Richardson, and David Spiegelhalter. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. CRC press, 1995

    1995

  6. [14]

    Bayesian calibration of computer models

    Marc C Kennedy and Anthony O’Hagan. Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 63(3):425–464, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    The wiener–askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations

    Dongbin Xiu and George Em Karniadakis. The wiener–askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM journal on scientific computing , 24(2):619–644, 2002

    2002

  8. [16]

    Inverse problems: a bayesian perspective

    Andrew M Stuart. Inverse problems: a bayesian perspective. Acta numerica, 19:451–559, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Polynomial-chaos-based kriging

    Roland Schobi, Bruno Sudret, and Joe Wiart. Polynomial-chaos-based kriging. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification , 5(2), 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Handbook of uncertainty quantifica- tion, volume 6

    Roger Ghanem, David Higdon, Houman Owhadi, et al. Handbook of uncertainty quantifica- tion, volume 6. Springer New York, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Physics-constrained deep learning for high-dimensional surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification without labeled data

    Yinhao Zhu, Nicholas Zabaras, Phaedon-Stelios Koutsourelakis, and Paris Perdikaris. Physics-constrained deep learning for high-dimensional surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification without labeled data. Journal of Computational Physics , 394:56–81, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Efficient, multimodal, and derivative-free bayesian inference with fisher–rao gradient flows

    Yifan Chen, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Jiaoyang Huang, Sebastian Reich, and Andrew M Stuart. Efficient, multimodal, and derivative-free bayesian inference with fisher–rao gradient flows. Inverse Problems, 40(12):125001, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Universal approximation bounds for superpositions of a sigmoidal function

    Andrew R Barron. Universal approximation bounds for superpositions of a sigmoidal function. IEEE Transactions on Information theory , 39(3):930–945, 1993

    1993

  14. [22]

    Deep learning.nature, 521(7553):436–444, 2015

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning.nature, 521(7553):436–444, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 , 2020

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32,...

    2019

  20. [28]

    JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018

    James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclaurin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake VanderPlas, Skye Wanderman-Milne, and Qiao Zhang. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Bayesian deep convolutional encoder–decoder networks for surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification

    Yinhao Zhu and Nicholas Zabaras. Bayesian deep convolutional encoder–decoder networks for surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification. Journal of Computational Physics , 366:415–447, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Switchnet: a neural network model for forward and inverse scattering problems

    Yuehaw Khoo and Lexing Ying. Switchnet: a neural network model for forward and inverse scattering problems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 41(5):A3182–A3201, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature machine intelligence , 3(3):218–229, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Neural operators with localized integral and differential kernels

    Miguel Liu-Schiaffini, Julius Berner, Boris Bonev, Thorsten Kurth, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operators with localized integral and differential kernels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16845 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Balanced model reduction via the proper orthogonal decomposition

    Karen Willcox and Jaime Peraire. Balanced model reduction via the proper orthogonal decomposition. AIAA journal , 40(11):2323–2330, 2002

    2002

  27. [35]

    Approximation of large-scale dynamical systems

    Athanasios C Antoulas. Approximation of large-scale dynamical systems . SIAM, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Reduced order methods for modeling and computa- tional reduction, volume 9

    Alfio Quarteroni, Gianluigi Rozza, et al. Reduced order methods for modeling and computa- tional reduction, volume 9. Springer, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems

    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

  30. [38]

    Model reduction of parametrized systems

    Peter Benner, Mario Ohlberger, Anthony Patera, Gianluigi Rozza, Karsten Urban, et al. Model reduction of parametrized systems . Springer, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    Calculating the singular values and pseudo-inverse of a matrix

    Gene Golub and William Kahan. Calculating the singular values and pseudo-inverse of a matrix. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Series B: Numerical Analysis, 2(2):205–224, 1965

    1965

  33. [41]

    Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space

    Bernard O Koopman. Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 17(5):315–318, 1931

    1931

  34. [42]

    Comparison of systems with complex behavior

    Igor Mezi´ c and Andrzej Banaszuk. Comparison of systems with complex behavior. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 197(1-2):101–133, 2004. 40

    2004

  35. [43]

    Nonlinear model reduction via discrete em- pirical interpolation

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

    2010

  36. [44]

    The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows

    Kevin Carlberg, Charbel Farhat, Julien Cortial, and David Amsallem. The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows. Journal of Computational Physics , 242:623–647, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Efficient non-linear model reduc- tion via a least-squares petrov–galerkin projection and compressive tensor approximations

    Kevin Carlberg, Charbel Bou-Mosleh, and Charbel Farhat. Efficient non-linear model reduc- tion via a least-squares petrov–galerkin projection and compressive tensor approximations. International Journal for numerical methods in engineering , 86(2):155–181, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data

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

    2010

  39. [47]

    Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows

    Clarence W Rowley, Igor Mezi´ c, Shervin Bagheri, Philipp Schlatter, and Dan S Henningson. Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. Journal of fluid mechanics , 641:115–127, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Dynamic mode decomposition: data-driven modeling of complex systems

    J Nathan Kutz, Steven L Brunton, Bingni W Brunton, and Joshua L Proctor. Dynamic mode decomposition: data-driven modeling of complex systems . SIAM, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Data-driven operator inference for nonintrusive projection-based model reduction

    Benjamin Peherstorfer and Karen Willcox. Data-driven operator inference for nonintrusive projection-based model reduction. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 306:196–215, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Lift & learn: Physics-informed machine learning for large-scale nonlinear dynamical systems

    Elizabeth Qian, Boris Kramer, Benjamin Peherstorfer, and Karen Willcox. Lift & learn: Physics-informed machine learning for large-scale nonlinear dynamical systems. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 406:132401, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    A data–driven ap- proximation of the koopman operator: Extending dynamic mode decomposition

    Matthew O Williams, Ioannis G Kevrekidis, and Clarence W Rowley. A data–driven ap- proximation of the koopman operator: Extending dynamic mode decomposition. Journal of Nonlinear Science, 25:1307–1346, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Reduced order modeling for nonlinear structural analysis using gaussian process regression

    Mengwu Guo and Jan S Hesthaven. Reduced order modeling for nonlinear structural analysis using gaussian process regression. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , 341:807–826, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Non-intrusive reduced order modeling of nonlinear problems using neural networks

    Jan S Hesthaven and Stefano Ubbiali. Non-intrusive reduced order modeling of nonlinear problems using neural networks. Journal of Computational Physics , 363:55–78, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear man- ifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders

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

    2020

  47. [55]

    Model reduction and neural networks for parametric pdes

    Kaushik Bhattacharya, Bamdad Hosseini, Nikola B Kovachki, and Andrew M Stuart. Model reduction and neural networks for parametric pdes. The SMAI journal of computational mathematics, 7:121–157, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Neural-network-augmented projection- based model order reduction for mitigating the kolmogorov barrier to reducibility of cfd models

    Joshua L Barnett, Charbel Farhat, and Yvon Maday. Neural-network-augmented projection- based model order reduction for mitigating the kolmogorov barrier to reducibility of cfd models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08939 , 2022. 41

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Adaptive mesh methods for one-and two-dimensional hyper- bolic conservation laws

    Huazhong Tang and Tao Tang. Adaptive mesh methods for one-and two-dimensional hyper- bolic conservation laws. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 41(2):487–515, 2003

    2003

  50. [58]

    Adaptive moving mesh methods, volume 174

    Weizhang Huang and Robert D Russell. Adaptive moving mesh methods, volume 174. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries

    Zongyi Li, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Burigede Liu, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(388):1–26, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Phygeonet: Physics-informed geometry-adaptive convolutional neural networks for solving parameterized steady-state pdes on irregular do- main

    Han Gao, Luning Sun, and Jian-Xun Wang. Phygeonet: Physics-informed geometry-adaptive convolutional neural networks for solving parameterized steady-state pdes on irregular do- main. Journal of Computational Physics , 428:110079, 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    Solving high-dimensional parametric engi- neering problems for inviscid flow around airfoils based on physics-informed neural networks

    Wenbo Cao, Jiahao Song, and Weiwei Zhang. Solving high-dimensional parametric engi- neering problems for inviscid flow around airfoils based on physics-informed neural networks. Journal of Computational Physics , 516:113285, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Dimon: Learning solution operators of partial differential equations on a diffeomorphic family of domains

    Minglang Yin, Nicolas Charon, Ryan Brody, Lu Lu, Natalia Trayanova, and Mauro Maggioni. Dimon: Learning solution operators of partial differential equations on a diffeomorphic family of domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07250 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Learning solution operators of pdes defined on varying domains via mionet

    Shanshan Xiao, Pengzhan Jin, and Yifa Tang. Learning solution operators of pdes defined on varying domains via mionet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15097 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 652–660, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Pointnet++: Deep hier- archical feature learning on point sets in a metric space

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hier- archical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  58. [66]

    Pointcnn: Convolution on x-transformed points

    Yangyan Li, Rui Bu, Mingchao Sun, Wei Wu, Xinhan Di, and Baoquan Chen. Pointcnn: Convolution on x-transformed points. Advances in neural information processing systems , 31, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Deep transfer operator learning for partial differential equations under conditional shift

    Somdatta Goswami, Katiana Kontolati, Michael D Shields, and George Em Karniadakis. Deep transfer operator learning for partial differential equations under conditional shift. Na- ture Machine Intelligence , 4(12):1155–1164, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Choose a transformer: Fourier or galerkin

    Shuhao Cao. Choose a transformer: Fourier or galerkin. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:24924–24940, 2021

    2021

  61. [69]

    Positional knowledge is all you need: Position-induced transformer (pit) for operator learning

    CHEN Junfeng and Kailiang Wu. Positional knowledge is all you need: Position-induced transformer (pit) for operator learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    The graph neural network model

    Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfar- dini. The graph neural network model. IEEE transactions on neural networks , 20(1):61–80, 2008. 42

    2008

  63. [71]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Learning mesh-based simulation with graph networks

    Tobias Pfaff, Meire Fortunato, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, and Peter W Battaglia. Learning mesh-based simulation with graph networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03409 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Laflownet: A dynamic graph method for the prediction of velocity and pressure fields in left atrium and left atrial appendage

    Xiaoyu Liu, Hongtao Lin, Xingli Liu, Jianghong Qian, Shengze Cai, Hongguang Fan, and Qi Gao. Laflownet: A dynamic graph method for the prediction of velocity and pressure fields in left atrium and left atrial appendage. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , 136...

    2024

  66. [74]

    Generative learning of the so- lution of parametric partial differential equations using guided diffusion models and virtual observations

    Han Gao, Sebastian Kaltenbach, and Petros Koumoutsakos. Generative learning of the so- lution of parametric partial differential equations using guided diffusion models and virtual observations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 435:117654, 2025

    2025

  67. [75]

    Vortexnet: A graph neural network-based multi-fidelity surrogate model for field predictions

    Yiren Shen, Jacob T Needels, and Juan J Alonso. Vortexnet: A graph neural network-based multi-fidelity surrogate model for field predictions. In AIAA SciTech 2025 Forum, page 0494, 2025

    2025

  68. [76]

    Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03485 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Andrew Stuart, Kaushik Bhattacharya, and Anima Anandkumar. Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:6755– 6766, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    Domain agnostic fourier neural operators

    Ning Liu, Siavash Jafarzadeh, and Yue Yu. Domain agnostic fourier neural operators. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  71. [79]

    Geometry-informed neural operator for large-scale 3d pdes

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Chris Choy, Boyi Li, Jean Kossaifi, Shourya Otta, Moham- mad Amin Nabian, Maximilian Stadler, Christian Hundt, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, et al. Geometry-informed neural operator for large-scale 3d pdes. Advances in Neural Information Processing System...

    2024

  72. [80]

    Geom-deeponet: A point-cloud-based deep operator network for field predictions on 3d parameterized geometries

    Junyan He, Seid Koric, Diab Abueidda, Ali Najafi, and Iwona Jasiuk. Geom-deeponet: A point-cloud-based deep operator network for field predictions on 3d parameterized geometries. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 429:117130, 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Pdeformer: Towards a foundation model for one-dimensional partial differential equations

    Zhanhong Ye, Xiang Huang, Leheng Chen, Hongsheng Liu, Zidong Wang, and Bin Dong. Pdeformer: Towards a foundation model for one-dimensional partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12652 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Discretization-independent surrogate modeling of physical fields around variable geometries using coordinate-based networks

    James Duvall and Karthik Duraisamy. Discretization-independent surrogate modeling of physical fields around variable geometries using coordinate-based networks. Data-Centric Engineering, 6:e5, 2025

    2025

  75. [83]

    Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions

    Vincent Sitzmann, Julien Martel, Alexander Bergman, David Lindell, and Gordon Wetzstein. Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 33:7462–7473, 2020. 43

    2020

  76. [84]

    Operator learning with neural fields: Tackling pdes on general geometries

    Louis Serrano, Lise Le Boudec, Armand Kassa ¨ ı Koupa ¨ ı, Thomas X Wang, Yuan Yin, Jean- No¨ el Vittaut, and Patrick Gallinari. Operator learning with neural fields: Tackling pdes on general geometries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:70581–70611, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Transolver: A fast transformer solver for pdes on general geometries

    Haixu Wu, Huakun Luo, Haowen Wang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Transolver: A fast transformer solver for pdes on general geometries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02366 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Linear integral equations, 1989

    R Kress. Linear integral equations, 1989

    1989

  79. [87]

    Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions

    Igor Mezi´ c. Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions. Nonlinear Dynamics, 41:309–325, 2005

    2005

  80. [88]

    An operator learning perspective on parameter-to-observable maps

    Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Nicholas H Nelsen, and Margaret Trautner. An operator learning perspective on parameter-to-observable maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06031 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Gaussian error linear units (gelus)

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes

    Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 24(89):1–97, 2023

    2023

  83. [91]

    The random feature model for input-output maps between banach spaces

    Nicholas H Nelsen and Andrew M Stuart. The random feature model for input-output maps between banach spaces. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 43(5):A3212–A3243, 2021

    2021

  84. [92]

    A library for learning neural operators

    Jean Kossaifi, Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Davit Pitt, Miguel Liu-Schiaffini, Robert Joseph George, Boris Bonev, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Julius Berner, and Anima Anandkumar. A library for learning neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10354 , 2024

    2024

  85. [93]

    Monotone funktionen, stieltjessche integrale und harmonische analyse

    Salomon Bochner. Monotone funktionen, stieltjessche integrale und harmonische analyse. Mathematische Annalen, 108(1):378–410, 1933

    1933

  86. [94]

    Random features for large-scale kernel machines

    Ali Rahimi and Benjamin Recht. Random features for large-scale kernel machines. Advances in neural information processing systems , 20, 2007

    2007

  87. [95]

    The cost-accuracy trade-off in operator learning with neural networks

    Maarten V de Hoop, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Elizabeth Qian, and Andrew M Stuart. The cost-accuracy trade-off in operator learning with neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13181, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Beyond regular grids: Fourier-based neural opera- tors on arbitrary domains

    Levi Lingsch, Mike Y Michelis, Emmanuel de Bezenac, Sirani M Perera, Robert K Katzschmann, and Siddhartha Mishra. Beyond regular grids: Fourier-based neural opera- tors on arbitrary domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19663 , 2023

    2023

  89. [97]

    Learn- ing neural operators on riemannian manifolds

    Gengxiang Chen, Xu Liu, Qinglu Meng, Lu Chen, Changqing Liu, and Yingguang Li. Learn- ing neural operators on riemannian manifolds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08166 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Continuum attention for neural operators

    Edoardo Calvello, Nikola B Kovachki, Matthew E Levine, and Andrew M Stuart. Continuum attention for neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06486 , 2024. 44

    2024

  91. [99]

    Transformer meets boundary value inverse prob- lems

    Ruchi Guo, Shuhao Cao, and Long Chen. Transformer meets boundary value inverse prob- lems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14977 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  92. [100]

    The nonlocal neural operator: Universal approximation

    Samuel Lanthaler, Zongyi Li, and Andrew M Stuart. The nonlocal neural operator: Universal approximation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13221 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations , 2015

    2015

  94. [102]

    Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates

    Leslie N Smith and Nicholay Topin. Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates. In Artificial intelligence and machine learning for multi-domain operations applications, volume 11006, pages 369–386. SPIE, 2019

    2019

  95. [103]

    Gmsh: A 3-d finite element mesh generator with built-in pre-and post-processing facilities

    Christophe Geuzaine and Jean-Fran¸ cois Remacle. Gmsh: A 3-d finite element mesh generator with built-in pre-and post-processing facilities. International journal for numerical methods in engineering, 79(11):1309–1331, 2009

    2009

  96. [104]

    Charbel Farhat, Michael Lesoinne, and Patrick Le Tallec. Load and motion transfer algo- rithms for fluid/structure interaction problems with non-matching discrete interfaces: Mo- mentum and energy conservation, optimal discretization and application to aeroelasticity. Computer...

    1998

  97. [105]

    Algorithms for interface treatment and load computation in embedded boundary methods for fluid and fluid–structure interaction problems

    Kevin Wang, Arthur Rallu, J-F Gerbeau, and Charbel Farhat. Algorithms for interface treatment and load computation in embedded boundary methods for fluid and fluid–structure interaction problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids , 67(9):1175– 1206, 2011

    2011

  98. [106]

    Robust and provably second-order explicit– explicit and implicit–explicit staggered time-integrators for highly non-linear compressible fluid–structure interaction problems

    C Farhat, A Rallu, K Wang, and T Belytschko. Robust and provably second-order explicit– explicit and implicit–explicit staggered time-integrators for highly non-linear compressible fluid–structure interaction problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engi- neeri...

    2010

  99. [107]

    A family of position-and orientation- independent embedded boundary methods for viscous flow and fluid–structure interaction problems

    Daniel Z Huang, Dante De Santis, and Charbel Farhat. A family of position-and orientation- independent embedded boundary methods for viscous flow and fluid–structure interaction problems. Journal of Computational Physics , 365:74–104, 2018

    2018

  100. [108]

    Mesh adaptation framework for embedded boundary methods for computational fluid dynamics and fluid-structure interaction

    Raunak Borker, Daniel Huang, Sebastian Grimberg, Charbel Farhat, Philip Avery, and Jason Rabinovitch. Mesh adaptation framework for embedded boundary methods for computational fluid dynamics and fluid-structure interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids...

    2019

  101. [109]

    Bottom-up hierarchical and categorical metacomputing for automating composition and deployment of directly computable multiphysics models

    JG Michopoulos, AP Iliopoulos, C Farhat, P Avery, G Daeninck, JC Steuben, and NA Ape- tre. Bottom-up hierarchical and categorical metacomputing for automating composition and deployment of directly computable multiphysics models. Journal of Computational Science , 79:102295, 2024

    2024

  102. [110]

    Learning three-dimensional flow for interactive aero- dynamic design

    Nobuyuki Umetani and Bernd Bickel. Learning three-dimensional flow for interactive aero- dynamic design. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 37(4):1–10, 2018. 45

    2018

  103. [111]

    The finite element method for fluid dynamics

    Olek C Zienkiewicz, Robert Leroy Taylor, and Perumal Nithiarasu. The finite element method for fluid dynamics . Elsevier, 2024

    2024

  104. [112]

    Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository

    Angel X Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, et al. Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03012 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Openfoam: A c++ library for complex physics simulations

    Hrvoje Jasak, Aleksandar Jemcov, Zeljko Tukovic, et al. Openfoam: A c++ library for complex physics simulations. In International workshop on coupled methods in numerical dynamics, volume 1000, pages 1–20. Dubrovnik, Croatia), 2007

    2007

  106. [114]

    Some salient features of the time-averaged ground vehicle wake

    Syed R Ahmed, G Ramm, and Gunter Faltin. Some salient features of the time-averaged ground vehicle wake. SAE transactions, pages 473–503, 1984

    1984

  107. [115]

    Modeling, simulation and validation of supersonic parachute inflation dynamics during mars landing

    Daniel Z Huang, Philip Avery, Charbel Farhat, Jason Rabinovitch, Armen Derkevorkian, and Lee D Peterson. Modeling, simulation and validation of supersonic parachute inflation dynamics during mars landing. In AIAA scitech 2020 forum , page 0313, 2020

    2020

  108. [116]

    Factorized fourier neural operators

    Alasdair Tran, Alexander Mathews, Lexing Xie, and Cheng Soon Ong. Factorized fourier neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.13802 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  109. [117]

    U-fno—an enhanced fourier neural operator-based deep-learning model for multiphase flow

    Gege Wen, Zongyi Li, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Anima Anandkumar, and Sally M Benson. U-fno—an enhanced fourier neural operator-based deep-learning model for multiphase flow. Advances in Water Resources, 163:104180, 2022

    2022

  110. [118]

    Gabor-filtered fourier neural operator for solving partial differential equations

    Kai Qi and Jian Sun. Gabor-filtered fourier neural operator for solving partial differential equations. Computers & Fluids , 274:106239, 2024

    2024

  111. [119]

    Mgno: Efficient parameterization of linear operators via multigrid

    Juncai He, Xinliang Liu, and Jinchao Xu. Mgno: Efficient parameterization of linear operators via multigrid. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19809 , 2023. 46

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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