Machine learning for modelling unstructured grid data in computational physics: a review

Cesar Quilodran; Che Liu; Dunhui Xiao; Eleda Johnson; Eric Newton Moro; Hao Zhou; Jie Pan; Jinlong Fu; Kewei Zhu; Kun Wang

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Machine learning for modelling unstructured grid data in computational physics: a review

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review organizes machine learning for unstructured grid data into three architectural families—preprocessing-based models, graph neural networks, and transformers—plus three learning paradigms, and presents a capability matrix and…

desk verdict A useful but uneven guidebook: the taxonomy and dataset list are worth having, but Table 1's categorical claim that GNNs lack position awareness is internally inconsistent with the review's own graph formalism. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09346 v1 pith:DMUZ7DQJ submitted 2025-02-13 cs.LG cs.CEphysics.data-anphysics.flu-dyn

Sibo Cheng , Marc Bocquet , Weiping Ding , Tobias Sebastian Finn , Rui Fu , Jinlong Fu , Yike Guo , Eleda Johnson

show 15 more authors

Siyi Li Che Liu Eric Newton Moro Jie Pan Matthew Piggott Cesar Quilodran Prakhar Sharma Kun Wang Dunhui Xiao Xiao Xue Yong Zeng Mingrui Zhang Hao Zhou Kewei Zhu Rossella Arcucci

This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.CEphysics.data-anphysics.flu-dyn

keywords unstructuredgriddatagraphneuralnetworkstransformerattentionphysics-informedreinforcementlearningmeshgenerationgenerativemodelsreduced-ordermodellingbenchmarkdatasets

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 review attempts to organize the growing body of machine learning methods for unstructured grid data in computational physics into a small set of architectural families: preprocessing-based models that interpolate or reorder irregular data onto structured grids, graph neural networks that operate directly on mesh topology, and transformers with spatial attention. It extends this taxonomy with three learning paradigms—physics-informed neural networks, reinforcement learning for mesh generation, and generative models—and treats these as complementary rather than competing tools. The authors intend the result as a guidebook, including a qualitative capability table and a categorized list of open-access benchmark datasets, to help practitioners choose and evaluate methods for irregular meshes. A sympathetic reading takes the central message to be that existing ML methods already cover the main needs of unstructured-mesh modeling, but no single family dominates and open benchmarking remains the key bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The central organizing device is a two-level taxonomy: three neural-network families (preprocessing-based CNNs, graph neural networks, and transformers) combined with three learning paradigms (PINNs, reinforcement learning, and generative models). The load-bearing object that turns the survey into a decision guide is the qualitative capability matrix in Section 3.4, which assigns each family strengths and weaknesses on dimensions like global information, adaptive-mesh support, physics information, and position awareness. The complementary load-bearing object is Table 3, which groups open benchmarks into steady flows, time-dependent flows with fixed meshes, and time-dependent flows with adaptive meshes, giving practitioners concrete test cases for each regime.

What would settle it

Run a controlled benchmark from Table 3's adaptive-mesh category, such as flow around a cylinder with mesh refinement, comparing an interpolation-based CNN, a graph neural network, and a transformer at matched training budgets, and measure prediction error against mesh irregularity; if the CNN with interpolation matches or beats the GNN on adaptive meshes, the claimed advantage of GNNs for time-varying meshes fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the diversity of ML approaches for unstructured grid data collapses into three recurring architectural strategies plus three training paradigms. The preprocessing family converts irregular data to a structured form through interpolation (nearest neighbor, barycentric, radial basis, Kriging) or through mesh reordering and coordinate transformation; graph neural networks treat mesh nodes and edges directly as a graph, naturally supporting adaptive meshes; transformers apply self-attention over node features, making position awareness explicit. The three paradigms—physics-informed neural networks with meshless loss functions, reinforcement learning for mesh generation and adaptation, and generative models including diffusion—are largely orthogonal to the architecture choice. The review also compiles Table 3, a categorized list of open fluid-dynamics test cases with available codes and datasets, and presents a qualitative comparison in Table 1 that scores each family on attributes such as global information, grid information, adaptive-mesh support, physics information, and position awareness.

Load-bearing premise

The guidebook's reliability rests on the assumption that the surveyed papers are representative of the field and that the qualitative capability matrix accurately characterizes each method family; if a major family is omitted or the matrix mischaracterizes a family, a practitioner could be misled even though the taxonomy itself remains sensible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A practitioner facing an unstructured-mesh task can select a method family by consulting the capability matrix rather than surveying the literature from scratch.
Graph neural networks are positioned as the natural choice when mesh topology changes during simulation, since they accept adaptive meshes and time-varying node counts.
Transformers become attractive when long-range spatial dependence and explicit node position matter, at the cost of being data-hungry compared to CNNs and GNNs.
Physics-informed neural networks and neural operators offer a meshless route when mesh generation itself is the bottleneck, though they rely on having a usable physics model.
The dataset list in Table 3 makes it possible to benchmark methods across steady, fixed-mesh unsteady, and adaptive-mesh flow categories on a common footing.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the review does not develop is adding computational cost and uncertainty estimates as selection criteria in the capability matrix, which would make the guidebook more actionable for real deployment.
The taxonomy generates a testable prediction: on adaptive-mesh problems, the advantage of graph neural networks over interpolation-based CNNs should grow as mesh irregularity increases, a hypothesis the Table 3 benchmarks could directly probe.
Because position awareness is the key differentiator in Table 1, injecting explicit node coordinates or positional encodings into graph neural networks is a promising hybrid direction that the review motivates but does not systematically evaluate.

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

Read this one for the taxonomy and the dataset list; treat Table 1 as a draft, not a result. The review is exactly what it says: a guidebook for computational scientists choosing ML methods for unstructured grid data. The organization into preprocessing, GNNs, and transformers, plus the learning-paradigm chapters, is sensible, and the mathematical preliminaries (POD, DMD, attention) are correctly stated. The dataset table in Section 5 is the most practical contribution; I'd point a student there first.

The soft spots are in proportion. The load-bearing capability matrix (Section 3.4, Table 1) marks GNNs as position-unaware, while Section 3.2 defines node features to 'typically include spatial locations and physical (flow) field parameters.' With coordinates as node features—and often relative displacement as edge features—a message-passing GNN has access to positions. The ✕ is categorical in a way the formalism does not support, and the prose in Section 3.4 repeats it. If 'position awareness' means only explicit transformer-style positional encoding, that criterion is never stated, and the same unstated standard is applied to the 2DCNN* column. That is a genuine internal inconsistency, not just an unsupported empirical claim. Practitioners consulting the matrix for a position-sensitive problem would be steered away from GNNs, which the paper's own references contradict. It needs fixing before the guidebook is reliable.

Two more minor concerns. The 'first review' claim in Section 1 is plausible but is stated without a systematic literature search or a documented selection methodology, so a reader cannot check completeness. And the survey is broad but sometimes thin—applications are listed, not analyzed, which the authors acknowledge. That is an acceptable scoping choice for a methodology-focused review.

Overall, this is a legitimate survey that deserves a serious referee. The fix is manageable: redefine 'position awareness' explicitly and reconcile Table 1 with the GNN formalism. I'd send it to review, with confidence that the taxonomy and dataset list will survive the revision. I'd cite it for the dataset table and the method families, not for the capability matrix.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of machine learning methods for unstructured grid data in computational physics. It proposes an organizing taxonomy of methods into three architectural families (preprocessing-based approaches such as interpolation and reordering, graph neural networks, and transformers with spatial attention) and then surveys learning paradigms (physics-informed neural networks, reinforcement learning for mesh generation, and generative models). The paper also provides a tutorial-style account of POD, DMD, interpolation schemes, CNN/RNN basics, self-attention and positional encoding, together with a capability summary table (Table 1) and a list of open-access CFD datasets (Table 3). The stated aim is to serve as a practitioner-oriented guidebook and, in Section 1, the authors claim this is the first comprehensive review of ML techniques for unstructured grid data in dynamical systems within computational science.

Significance. If the claims hold, the review would fill a useful niche: the organization into preprocessing-based methods, GNNs, and transformers is sensible, and the coverage of learning paradigms such as PINNs, RL-based meshing, and diffusion models is broad and currently relevant. The mathematical preliminaries in Sections 2.2-2.5 (POD, DMD, interpolation) are standard and correctly stated, and the survey draws on a wide bibliography. The strongest practical value is the curated dataset list and the qualitative capability matrix, but those are also the parts that need the most careful verification. The paper is a review, not a methods paper, so the bar for acceptance is whether its organizing claims and comparative statements are accurate and internally consistent.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.4, Table 1] The capability matrix marks GNNs as ✕ for 'Position awareness' and the prose states that GNNs 'struggle to understand the absolute or relative positions.' This directly conflicts with Section 3.2, where the input tuple G=(VG, EG, u, AG) is defined and node features VG are said to 'typically include spatial locations and physical (flow) field parameters.' Many cited GNN applications, including MeshGraphNets [16] and the convolutional graph networks of [220] and [225], use mesh node coordinates as features. If 'position awareness' is intended to mean explicit positional encoding of the transformer type, that definition is never stated, and the row for 2DCNN* (marked ✓) would need to be justified under the same definition. Since Table 1 is presented as an ability summary for method selection, this internal inconsistency is load-bearing for the guidebook claim and should be corrected, either by revising the entries or by defining the precise sense of position awareness used.
[Section 3.4, Table 1 vs. Section 4.1] Table 1 omits neural operators (FNO, DeepONet, and variants such as Geo-FNO, NUNO, and Geom-DeepONet), even though Section 4.1 discusses these methods at length as important tools for unstructured grid data. A practitioner using Table 1 to choose a method family would not see a major family that the paper itself treats as significant. If the table is meant to summarize only the architectural families of Section 3, the caption should say so explicitly; as written, it is titled 'Summary of neural network and linear projection methods' and includes PINNs from Section 4, so the omission reads as an inconsistency rather than a deliberate scope restriction.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1] The claim that this is 'the first review paper to comprehensively examine' ML for unstructured grid data is difficult to verify and is likely to invite scrutiny; consider softening the wording or adding a short comparison with existing surveys to position the novelty more precisely.
[Section 3.2] There are typos in this section, such as 'accomodate' for 'accommodate' and 'hiercrchical' for 'hierarchical' in the description of [224]; a careful proofreading pass is recommended.
[Section 3.3.1 and Figure 15] The notation in Eq. (34) is slightly inconsistent: the text writes MultiHeadAttention(x) but then uses hi = Attention(QWQ_i, KWK_i, VWV_i), where Q, K, V are already projections; aligning the notation between Eqs. (32)-(34) would improve clarity.
[Section 4.1] In the PINN example around Eqs. (37)-(40), the loss terms enforce only the divergence-free constraint and the boundary condition; the text would be clearer if it stated that this is a simplified illustration for the incompressibility constraint rather than a complete Navier-Stokes PINN.
[Section 5, Table 3] The 'Available code/Dataset' column contains several entries that appear to be citations to papers rather than direct dataset links (e.g., 'Data[225][202]' and 'Data[391]'); since the review promises a summary of open-access datasets, providing stable URLs or DOIs would make the guidebook substantially more useful.
[Throughout] The paper states in Section 1 that it does not intend to compare performance, but Table 1 uses categorical ✓/✕/⃝ symbols; adding a sentence that these symbols represent qualitative capability assessments rather than empirical performance comparisons would help avoid misreading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's taxonomy, dataset list, and qualitative capability matrix are descriptive syntheses of an external literature, not derivations from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

This manuscript is a survey, not a derivation. Its load-bearing content is a taxonomy of ML methods for unstructured grid data (preprocessing-based approaches, GNNs, transformers; plus PINNs, RL, generative models) and a qualitative comparison table. These are organizational and editorial judgments about the reviewed literature, not results derived from equations or fitted parameters. The capability matrix in Table 1 is the authors' synthesis; even if one disagrees with a cell, such as marking GNNs as lacking position awareness despite Section 3.2 defining node features to include spatial locations, that is an internal consistency or correctness concern, not circularity: the claim is not equivalent to its input by construction. Self-citations are present (e.g., Voronoi-tessellation CNN [13,14], latent assimilation [196], VAE/GAN forecasting [347]), but they function as representative examples of method families and do not bear the weight of the review's central assertions. The 'first review' contribution claim is a coverage statement about the literature, not a prediction derived from cited works. No quantity is fitted and later reported as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain. Hence the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. The core burden rests on domain assumptions about the coherence of the field and the representativeness of the surveyed literature, plus the author-generated capability matrix.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Unstructured mesh data is a distinct and important class of scientific data requiring dedicated ML methods.
The review's entire premise: it argues that irregularity challenges standard ML, motivating the survey. No evidence is provided beyond anecdotal examples.
ad hoc to paper The qualitative capability matrix in Table 1 is an accurate synthesis of the literature.
Table 1 assigns categorical checks/crosses to seven methods without citing comparative experiments or benchmarks. This is an assumption introduced by the authors for this review.
domain assumption The selected literature is representative of the broader field.
The authors do not describe a systematic search or inclusion criteria, so the completeness of the survey is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine learning for modelling unstructured grid data in computational physics: a review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DMUZ7DQJ

@misc{pith2026250209346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine learning for modelling unstructured grid data in computational physics: a review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DMUZ7DQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09346}
}

read the original abstract

Unstructured grid data are essential for modelling complex geometries and dynamics in computational physics. Yet, their inherent irregularity presents significant challenges for conventional machine learning (ML) techniques. This paper provides a comprehensive review of advanced ML methodologies designed to handle unstructured grid data in high-dimensional dynamical systems. Key approaches discussed include graph neural networks, transformer models with spatial attention mechanisms, interpolation-integrated ML methods, and meshless techniques such as physics-informed neural networks. These methodologies have proven effective across diverse fields, including fluid dynamics and environmental simulations. This review is intended as a guidebook for computational scientists seeking to apply ML approaches to unstructured grid data in their domains, as well as for ML researchers looking to address challenges in computational physics. It places special focus on how ML methods can overcome the inherent limitations of traditional numerical techniques and, conversely, how insights from computational physics can inform ML development. To support benchmarking, this review also provides a summary of open-access datasets of unstructured grid data in computational physics. Finally, emerging directions such as generative models with unstructured data, reinforcement learning for mesh generation, and hybrid physics-data-driven paradigms are discussed to inspire future advancements in this evolving field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09346 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Methods and applications of unstructured mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** POD of High-Fidelity Simulation Data Over Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (20 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: DMD of dynamic modes in high-fidelity simulation data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A regression tree predicts across continuous domains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Gaussian process regression (as known as Kriging [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Evolutionary trend of classic CNN models: Visual Geometry Group Network, Regional-Based Convo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Illustration of converting unstructured grid data to structured gird data via interpolation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Graphical illustration of unstructured grid interpolation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Graphical illustration of Kriging interpolation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Illustration of ML methods with interpolated inputs for unstructured data. The figure is based on elements in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: 1D CNN-based autoencoder with grid data reordering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: SVD-AE for simulated air pollution data with unstructured meshes In fact, numerous studies have investigated the equivalence between POD and linear autoencoder networks [208, 209], leading to the possibility of jointly training these two-stage data processing methods…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: An example schematic for combining GCNs and LSTMs for modelling spatial-temporal unstrcutured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Transformer architecture. For brevity, only the encoder part of the original transformer is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Comparison between models on processing unstructured mesh data. A transformer model employs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Schematic of a parametric PINN for a 3D time dependent problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Reinforcement learning for unstructured mesh generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: The trilemma of the four most popular generative model types: all models can be framed into this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Variational autoencoder and generative adversarial networks can be combined for forecasting on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Steady flow cases: Computational domain and computational mesh for lid-driven cavity flow of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_21.png]

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: Dynamic flow with fixed unstructured meshes cases: Computational domain and computational mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_22.png]

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: Dynamic flow with adaptive unstructured meshes cases: Initial spare mesh and adaptive mesh for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_23.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Learning Mappings in Mesh-based Simulations
cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A bilinear scatter encoding plus a masked UNet yields competitive surrogate accuracy and data efficiency on several mesh-based simulation benchmarks, though the encoding is a standard technique.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[16]

Pfaff, M

T. Pfaff, M. Fortunato, A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, P. W. Battaglia, Learning mesh-based simulation with graph networks, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

2021
[220]

Ogoke, K

F. Ogoke, K. Meidani, A. Hashemi, A. B. Farimani, Graph convolutional networks applied to unstructured flow field data, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2 (2021) 045020

2021
[225]

J. Chen, E. Hachem, J. Viquerat, Graph neural networks for laminar flow prediction around random two-dimensional shapes, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021)

2021
[1]

Carleo, I

G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, L. Zdeborová, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Reviews of Modern Physics 91 (2019) 045002

2019
[2]

Willard, X

J. Willard, X. Jia, S. Xu, M. Steinbach, V. Kumar, Integrating physics-based modeling with machine learning: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04919 1 (2020) 1–34

arXiv 2020
[3]

Fukami, K

K. Fukami, K. Fukagata, K. Taira, Super-resolution analysis via machine learning: a survey for fluid flows, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics 37 (2023) 421–444

2023
[4]

S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, P. Koumoutsakos, Machine learning for fluid mechanics, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 52 (2020) 477–508.arXiv:1905.11075

arXiv 2020
[5]

A. Katz, V. Sankaran, Mesh quality effects on the accuracy of cfd solutions on unstructured meshes, Journal of Computational Physics 230 (2011) 7670–7686

2011

Show all 300 references

[6]

Alauzet, A

F. Alauzet, A. Loseille, A decade of progress on anisotropic mesh adaptation for computational fluid dynamics, Computer-Aided Design 72 (2016) 13–39

2016
[7]

Spiegel, T

M. Spiegel, T. Redel, Y. J. Zhang, T. Struffert, J. Hornegger, R. G. Grossman, A. Doerfler, C. Kar- monik, Tetrahedral vs. polyhedral mesh size evaluation on flow velocity and wall shear stress for cerebral hemodynamic simulation, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedica...

2011
[8]

Q. Wang, W. Fang, R. de Richter, C. Peng, T. Ming, Effect of moving vehicles on pollutant dispersion in street canyon by using dynamic mesh updating method, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 187 (2019) 15–25. 47

2019
[9]

Benson, A

E. Benson, A. Mohammed, J. Gardell, S. Masich, E. Czeizler, P. Orponen, B. Högberg, Dna rendering of polyhedral meshes at the nanoscale, Nature 523 (2015) 441–444

2015
[10]

Cuomo, V

S. Cuomo, V. S. Di Cola, F. Giampaolo, G. Rozza, M. Raissi, F. Piccialli, Scientific machine learn- ing through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next, Journal of Scientific Computing 92 (2022) 88

2022
[11]

Loehner, D

R. Loehner, D. Sharov, H. Luo, R. Ramamurti, Overlapping unstructured grids, in: 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2001, p. 439

2001
[12]

C. E. Heaney, Y. Li, O. K. Matar, C. C. Pain, Applying convolutional neural networks to data on unstructured meshes with space-filling curves, Neural Networks 175 (2024) 106198

2024
[13]

Fukami, R

K. Fukami, R. Maulik, N. Ramachandra, K. Fukagata, K. Taira, Global field reconstruction from sparse sensors with voronoi tessellation-assisted deep learning, Nature Machine Intelligence 3 (2021) 945–951

2021
[14]

Cheng, C

S. Cheng, C. Liu, Y. Guo, R. Arcucci, Efficient deep data assimilation with sparse observations and time-varying sensors, Journal of Computational Physics 496 (2024) 112581

2024
[15]

Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, G. Long, C. Zhang, S. Y. Philip, A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 32 (2020) 4–24

2020
[17]

Perera, V

R. Perera, V. Agrawal, Dynamic and adaptive mesh-based graph neural network framework for simulating displacement and crack fields in phase field models, Mechanics of Materials 186 (2023) 104789

2023
[18]

X. Chu, Z. Tian, Y. Wang, B. Zhang, H. Ren, X. Wei, H. Xia, C. Shen, Twins: Revisiting the design of spatial attention in vision transformers, Advances in neural information processing systems 34 (2021) 9355–9366

2021
[19]

Vaswani, N

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

2017
[20]

Geneva, N

N. Geneva, N. Zabaras, Transformers for modeling physical systems, Neural Networks 146 (2022) 272–289

2022
[21]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 378 (2019) 686–707

2019
[22]

G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, L. Yang, Physics-informed machine learning, Nature Reviews Physics 3 (2021) 422–440

2021
[23]

Foucart, A

C. Foucart, A. Charous, P. F. Lermusiaux, Deep reinforcement learning for adaptive mesh refinement, Journal of Computational Physics 491 (2023) 112381

2023
[24]

Lorsung, A

C. Lorsung, A. Barati Farimani, Mesh deep q network: A deep reinforcement learning framework for improving meshes in computational fluid dynamics, AIP Advances 13 (2023)

2023
[25]

I. Kim, S. Kim, D. You, Non-iterative generation of an optimal mesh for a blade passage using deep reinforcement learning, Computer Physics Communications 294 (2024) 108962

2024
[26]

D. P. Kingma, M. Welling, et al., An introduction to variational autoencoders, Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 12 (2019) 307–392

2019
[27]

Goodfellow, J

I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, Generative adversarial networks, Communications of the ACM 63 (2020) 139–144. 48

2020
[28]

Y.Song, J.Sohl-Dickstein, D.P.Kingma, A.Kumar, S.Ermon, B.Poole, Score-basedgenerativemodeling through stochastic differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[29]

Croitoru, V

F.-A. Croitoru, V. Hondru, R. T. Ionescu, M. Shah, Diffusion models in vision: A survey, IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45 (2023) 10850–10869

2023
[30]

Jacobsen, Y

C. Jacobsen, Y. Zhuang, K. Duraisamy, Cocogen: Physically-consistent and conditioned score-based generative models for forward and inverse problems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10527 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[31]

Zhuang, S

Y. Zhuang, S. Cheng, K. Duraisamy, Spatially-aware diffusion models with cross-attention for global field reconstruction with sparse observations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 435 (2025) 117623

2025
[32]

Price, A

I. Price, A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, F. Alet, T. R. Andersson, A. El-Kadi, D. Masters, T. Ewalds, J. Stott, S. Mohamed, P. Battaglia, et al., Gencast: Diffusion-based ensemble forecasting for medium-range weather, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15796 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[33]

T. S. Finn, C. Durand, A. Farchi, M. Bocquet, P. Rampal, A. Carrassi, Generative diffusion for regional surrogate models from sea-ice simulations, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 16 (2024) e2024MS004395. doi:10.1029/2024MS004395

2024 doi
[34]

Loseille, Unstructured Mesh Generation Adaptation, in: Handbook of Numerical Analysis, volume 18, Elsevier, 2017, pp

A. Loseille, Unstructured Mesh Generation Adaptation, in: Handbook of Numerical Analysis, volume 18, Elsevier, 2017, pp. 263–302. doi:10.1016/bs.hna.2016.10.004

2017 doi
[35]

N. J. Taylor, R. Haimes, Geometry Modelling: Underlying Concepts and Requirements for Computational Simulation (Invited), in: 2018 Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018. doi:10.2514/6.2018-3402

2018 doi
[36]

M. A. Park, W. L. Kleb, W. T. Jones, J. A. Krakos, T. R. Michal, A. Loseille, R. Haimes, J. Dannenhoffer, Geometry modeling for unstructured mesh adaptation, in: AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, 2019, p. 2946

2019
[37]

P. J. Frey, P. L. George, Mesh Generation: Application to Finite Elements, 2nd ed ed., ISTE ; John Wiley & Sons, 2008

2008
[38]

M. W. Bern, P. E. Plassmann, Mesh generation., Handbook of computational geometry 38 (2000)

2000
[39]

C. J. Budd, W. Huang, R. D. Russell, Adaptivity with moving grids, Acta Numerica 18 (2009) 111–241. doi:10.1017/s0962492906400015

2009 doi
[40]

Mavriplis, Euler and Navier-Stokes computations for two-dimensional geometries using unstructured meshes, 1990

D. Mavriplis, Euler and Navier-Stokes computations for two-dimensional geometries using unstructured meshes, 1990

1990
[41]

M. D. Piggott, G. J. Gorman, C. C. Pain, P. A. Allison, A. S. Candy, B. T. Martin, M. R. Wells, A new computational framework for multi-scale ocean modelling based on adapting unstructured meshes, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 56 (2008) 1003–1015. doi:10.1002/fld.1663

2008 doi
[42]

doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.09.031

Y.Ito, Challengesinunstructuredmeshgenerationforpracticalandefficientcomputationalfluiddynamics simulations, Computers & Fluids 85 (2013) 47–52. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.09.031

2013 doi
[43]

Marić, D

T. Marić, D. B. Kothe, D. Bothe, Unstructured un-split geometrical Volume-of-Fluid methods – A review, Journal of Computational Physics 420 (2020) 109695. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109695

2020
[44]

J. T. Hwang, J. R. R. A. Martins, An unstructured quadrilateral mesh generation algorithm for aircraft structures, Aerospace Science and Technology 59 (2016) 172–182. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2016.10.010

2016 doi
[45]

Slone, K

A. Slone, K. Pericleous, C. Bailey, M. Cross, Dynamic fluid–structure interaction using finite volume unstructuredmeshprocedures, Computers&Structures80(2002)371–390.doi: 10.1016/S0045-7949(01) 00177-8. 49

2002 doi
[46]

T. J. Baker, Mesh generation: Art or science?, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 29–63

2005
[47]

Z. Chen, R. Ewing, R. Lazarov, Domain decomposition algorithms for mixed methods for second-order elliptic problems, Mathematics of Computation 65 (1996) 467–490

1996
[48]

Benner, S

P. Benner, S. Gugercin, K. Willcox, A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems, SIAM Review 57 (2015) 483–531

2015
[49]

C. W. Rowley, S. T. Dawson, Model reduction for flow analysis and control, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 49 (2017) 387–417

2017
[50]

Arcucci, D

R. Arcucci, D. Xiao, F. Fang, I. M. Navon, P. Wu, C. C. Pain, Y.-K. Guo, A reduced order with data assimilation model: Theory and practice, Computers & Fluids 257 (2023) 105862

2023
[51]

D. Xiao, F. Fang, A. G. Buchan, C. C. Pain, I. M. Navon, A. Muggeridge, Non-intrusive reduced order modelling of the navier–stokes equations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 293 (2015) 522–541

2015
[52]

Audouze, F

C. Audouze, F. De Vuyst, P. B. Nair, Nonintrusive reduced-order modeling of parametrized time- dependent partial differential equations, Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations 29 (2013) 1587–1628

2013
[53]

Le Guennec, J

Y. Le Guennec, J. P. Brunet, F. Z. Daim, M. Chau, Y. Tourbier, A parametric and non-intrusive reduced order model of car crash simulation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 338 (2018) 186–207

2018
[54]

J. S. Hesthaven, S. Ubbiali, Non-intrusive reduced order modeling of nonlinear problems using neural networks, Journal of Computational Physics 363 (2018) 55–78

2018
[55]

M. Guo, J. S. Hesthaven, Reduced order modeling for nonlinear structural analysis using gaussian process regression, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 341 (2018) 807–826

2018
[56]

M. Guo, J. S. Hesthaven, Data-driven reduced order modeling for time-dependent problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 345 (2019) 75–99

2019
[57]

Z. Wang, D. Xiao, F. Fang, R. Govindan, C. C. Pain, Y. Guo, Model identification of reduced order fluid dynamics systems using deep learning, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 86 (2018) 255–268

2018
[58]

D. Xiao, C. E. Heaney, L. Mottet, F. Fang, W. Lin, I. M. Navon, Y. Guo, O. K. Matar, A. G. Robins, C. C. Pain, A reduced order model for turbulent flows in the urban environment using machine learning, Building and Environment 148 (2019) 323–337

2019
[59]

A. G. Buchan, C. C. Pain, F. Fang, I. M. Navon, A pod reduced-order model for eigenvalue problems with application to reactor physics, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 95 (2013) 1011–1032

2013
[60]

F. Fang, C. Pain, I. Navon, G. Gorman, M. Piggott, P. Allison, P. Farrell, A. Goddard, A pod reduced order unstructured mesh ocean modelling method for moderate reynolds number flows, Ocean modelling 28 (2009) 127–136

2009
[61]

Manzoni, F

A. Manzoni, F. Salmoiraghi, L. Heltai, Reduced basis isogeometric methods (rb-iga) for the real-time simulation of potential flows about parametrized naca airfoils, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 284 (2015) 1147–1180

2015
[62]

Z. Luo, H. Li, P. Sun, J. An, I. M. Navon, A reduced-order finite volume element formulation based on pod method and numerical simulation for two-dimensional solute transport problems, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 89 (2013) 50–68. 50

2013
[63]

J. Du, F. Fang, C. C. Pain, I. M. Navon, J. Zhu, D. A. Ham, Pod reduced-order unstructured mesh modeling applied to 2d and 3d fluid flow, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 65 (2013) 362– 379

2013
[64]

D. Xiao, F. Fang, C. Pain, G. Hu, Non-intrusive reduced-order modelling of the navier–stokes equations based on rbf interpolation, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 79 (2015) 580–595

2015
[65]

F. Fang, T. Zhang, D. Pavlidis, C. C. Pain, A. G. Buchan, I. M. Navon, Reduced order modelling of an unstructured mesh air pollution model and application in 2d/3d urban street canyons, Atmospheric Environment 96 (2014) 96–106

2014
[66]

Ştefănescu, I

R. Ştefănescu, I. M. Navon, Pod/deim nonlinear model order reduction of an adi implicit shallow water equations model, Journal of Computational Physics 237 (2013) 95–114

2013
[67]

A. T. Mohan, D. V. Gaitonde, A deep learning based approach to reduced order modeling for turbulent flow control using lstm neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09269 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[68]

P. Wu, J. Sun, X. Chang, W. Zhang, R. Arcucci, Y. Guo, C. C. Pain, Data-driven reduced order model with temporal convolutional neural network, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 360 (2020) 112766

2020
[69]

P. J. Schmid, Dynamic mode decomposition and its variants, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 54 (2022) 225–254

2022
[70]

J. N. Kutz, S. L. Brunton, B. W. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, Dynamic mode decomposition: data-driven modeling of complex systems, SIAM, 2016

2016
[71]

P. J. Schmid, Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data, Journal of fluid me- chanics 656 (2010) 5–28

2010
[72]

J. H. Tu, Dynamic mode decomposition: Theory and applications, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 2013

2013
[73]

Taira, S

K. Taira, S. L. Brunton, S. T. Dawson, C. W. Rowley, T. Colonius, B. J. McKeon, O. T. Schmidt, S. Gordeyev, V. Theofilis, L. S. Ukeiley, Modal analysis of fluid flows: An overview, Aiaa Journal 55 (2017) 4013–4041

2017
[74]

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

1931
[75]

Mezić, Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions, Nonlinear Dynamics 41 (2005) 309–325

I. Mezić, Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions, Nonlinear Dynamics 41 (2005) 309–325

2005
[76]

Mezić, Analysis of fluid flows via spectral properties of the koopman operator, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 45 (2013) 357–378

I. Mezić, Analysis of fluid flows via spectral properties of the koopman operator, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 45 (2013) 357–378

2013
[77]

C. W. Rowley, I. Mezić, S. Bagheri, P. Schlatter, D. S. Henningson, Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 641 (2009) 115–127

2009
[78]

G. E. Hinton, R. R. Salakhutdinov, Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks, science 313 (2006) 504–507

2006
[79]

Cheng, C

S. Cheng, C. Quilodrán-Casas, S. Ouala, A. Farchi, C. Liu, P. Tandeo, R. Fablet, D. Lucor, B. Iooss, J. Brajard, et al., Machine learning with data assimilation and uncertainty quantification for dynamical systems: a review, IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 10 (2023) 1361–1387

2023
[80]

Y. Guo, Y. Liu, A. Oerlemans, S. Lao, S. Wu, M. S. Lew, Deep learning for visual understanding: A review, Neurocomputing 187 (2016) 27–48. 51

2016
[81]

Quilodrán-Casas, R

C. Quilodrán-Casas, R. Arcucci, L. Mottet, Y. Guo, C. Pain, Adversarial autoencoders and adversarial lstm for improved forecasts of urban air pollution simulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06297 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[82]

T. R. Phillips, C. E. Heaney, P. N. Smith, C. C. Pain, An autoencoder-based reduced-order model for eigenvalue problems with application to neutron diffusion, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 122 (2021) 3780–3811

2021
[83]

Y. Pu, Z. Gan, R. Henao, X. Yuan, C. Li, A. Stevens, L. Carin, Variational autoencoder for deep learning of images, labels and captions, Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

2016
[84]

Dutta, P

S. Dutta, P. Rivera-Casillas, B. Styles, M. W. Farthing, Reduced order modeling using advection-aware autoencoders, Mathematical and Computational Applications 27 (2022) 34

2022
[85]

Alsayyari, Z

F. Alsayyari, Z. Perkó, D. Lathouwers, J. L. Kloosterman, A nonintrusive reduced order modelling ap- proachusingproperorthogonaldecompositionandlocallyadaptivesparsegrids, JournalofComputational Physics 399 (2019) 108912

2019
[86]

Baiges, R

J. Baiges, R. Codina, I. Castanar, E. Castillo, A finite element reduced-order model based on adap- tive mesh refinement and artificial neural networks, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 121 (2020) 588–601

2020
[87]

Carlberg, Adaptive h-refinement for reduced-order models, International Journal for Numerical Meth- ods in Engineering 102 (2015) 1192–1210

K. Carlberg, Adaptive h-refinement for reduced-order models, International Journal for Numerical Meth- ods in Engineering 102 (2015) 1192–1210

2015
[88]

C. Pain, A. Umpleby, C. De Oliveira, A. Goddard, Tetrahedral mesh optimisation and adaptivity for steady-state and transient finite element calculations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190 (2001) 3771–3796

2001
[89]

Q. Wang, N. Ripamonti, J. S. Hesthaven, Recurrent neural network closure of parametric pod-galerkin reduced-order models based on the mori-zwanzig formalism, Journal of Computational Physics 410 (2020) 109402

2020
[90]

Maulik, B

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

2021
[91]

Nakamura, K

T. Nakamura, K. Fukami, K. Hasegawa, Y. Nabae, K. Fukagata, Convolutional neural network and long short-term memory based reduced order surrogate for minimal turbulent channel flow, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021)

2021
[92]

P. Wu, S. Gong, K. Pan, F. Qiu, W. Feng, C. Pain, Reduced order model using convolutional auto-encoder with self-attention, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021)

2021
[93]

R. Fu, D. Xiao, I. M. Navon, F. Fang, L. Yang, C. Wang, S. Cheng, A non-linear non-intrusive reduced order model of fluid flow by auto-encoder and self-attention deep learning methods, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 124 (2023) 3087–3111

2023
[94]

S.L.Brunton, J.L.Proctor, J.N.Kutz, Discoveringgoverningequationsfromdatabysparseidentification of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 113 (2016) 3932–3937

2016
[95]

S.H.Rudy, S.L.Brunton, J.L.Proctor, J.N.Kutz, Data-drivendiscoveryofpartialdifferentialequations, Science advances 3 (2017) e1602614

2017
[96]

Fasel, J

U. Fasel, J. N. Kutz, B. W. Brunton, S. L. Brunton, Ensemble-sindy: Robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learning and control, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 478 (2022) 20210904

2022
[97]

Fukami, T

K. Fukami, T. Murata, K. Zhang, K. Fukagata, Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics with low- dimensionalized flow representations, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 926 (2021) A10. 52

2021
[98]

H. Gong, S. Cheng, Z. Chen, Q. Li, Data-enabled physics-informed machine learning for reduced-order modeling digital twin: application to nuclear reactor physics, Nuclear Science and Engineering 196 (2022) 668–693

2022
[99]

J. Fu, D. Xiao, R. Fu, C. Li, C. Zhu, R. Arcucci, I. M. Navon, Physics-data combined machine learning for parametric reduced-order modelling of nonlinear dynamical systems in small-data regimes, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 404 (2023) 115771

2023
[100]

E. Fix, J. L. Hodges, Discriminatory analysis. nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties, International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique 57 (1989) 238–247

1989
[101]

Cover, P

T. Cover, P. Hart, Nearest neighbor pattern classification, IEEE transactions on information theory 13 (1967) 21–27

1967
[102]

Chomboon, P

K. Chomboon, P. Chujai, P. Teerarassamee, K. Kerdprasop, N. Kerdprasop, An empirical study of distance metrics for k-nearest neighbor algorithm, in: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on industrial application engineering, volume 2, 2015, p. 4

2015
[103]

Hoang, K

C. Hoang, K. Chowdhary, K. Lee, J. Ray, Projection-based model reduction of dynamical systems using space–time subspace and machine learning, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 389 (2022) 114341

2022
[104]

Z. Gao, Y. Lin, X. Sun, X. Zeng, A reduced order method for nonlinear parameterized partial differential equations using dynamic mode decomposition coupled with k-nearest-neighbors regression, Journal of Computational Physics 452 (2022) 110907

2022
[105]

E. M. Bollt, Model selection, confidence and scaling in predicting chaotic time-series, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 10 (2000) 1407–1422

2000
[106]

E. M. Bollt, Regularized forecasting of chaotic dynamical systems, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 94 (2017) 8–15

2017
[107]

Von Winterfeldt, W

D. Von Winterfeldt, W. Edwards, Decision analysis and behavioral research, 1986, pp. 63–69

1986
[108]

S. Wille, A local solution adapted tri-tree multigrid generator and iterative equation solver for mixed finite element formulation of the navier-stokes equations, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 131 (1996) 109–132

1996
[109]

B. A. Freno, K. T. Carlberg, Machine-learning error models for approximate solutions to parameterized systems of nonlinear equations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 348 (2019) 250–296

2019
[110]

K. Sun, S. Likhate, V. Vittal, V. S. Kolluri, S. Mandal, An online dynamic security assessment scheme using phasor measurements and decision trees, IEEE transactions on power systems 22 (2007) 1935–1943

2007
[111]

Wang, X.-b

L.-m. Wang, X.-b. Zang, Implementation of a scalable decision forest model based on information theory, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 5981–5985

2011
[112]

N. E. I. Karabadji, I. Khelf, H. Seridi, S. Aridhi, D. Remond, W. Dhifli, A data sampling and attribute selection strategy for improving decision tree construction, Expert Systems with Applications 129 (2019) 84–96

2019
[113]

O. Sagi, L. Rokach, Approximating xgboost with an interpretable decision tree, Information sciences 572 (2021) 522–542

2021
[114]

O. Sagi, L. Rokach, Explainable decision forest: Transforming a decision forest into an interpretable tree, Information Fusion 61 (2020) 124–138

2020
[115]

Y. Izza, A. Ignatiev, J. Marques-Silva, On tackling explanation redundancy in decision trees, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 75 (2022) 261–321. 53

2022
[116]

Farhi, S

E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, Quantum computation and decision trees, Physical Review A 58 (1998) 915

1998
[117]

D. Ge, M. Lin, Y. Yang, R. Zhang, Q. Chou, Quantitative analysis of dynamic fault trees using improved sequential binary decision diagrams, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 142 (2015) 289–299

2015
[118]

Breiman, Random forests, Machine learning 45 (2001) 5–32

L. Breiman, Random forests, Machine learning 45 (2001) 5–32

2001
[119]

Hackel, J

T. Hackel, J. D. Wegner, K. Schindler, Contour detection in unstructured 3d point clouds, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 1610–1618

2016
[120]

Auret, C

L. Auret, C. Aldrich, Change point detection in time series data with random forests, Control Engineering Practice 18 (2010) 990–1002

2010
[121]

T. Chen, C. Guestrin, Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system, in: Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 2016, pp. 785–794

2016
[122]

Kumar, M

P. Kumar, M. Alruqi, H. Hanafi, P. Sharma, V. V. Wanatasanappan, Effect of particle size on second law of thermodynamics analysis of al2o3 nanofluid: Application of xgboost and gradient boosting regression for prognostic analysis, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 197 ...

2024
[123]

K. Zhu, S. Cheng, N. Kovalchuk, M. Simmons, Y.-K. Guo, O. K. Matar, R. Arcucci, Analyzing drop coalescence in microfluidic devices with a deep learning generative model, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (2023)

2023
[124]

Y. Yan, X. Li, W. Sun, X. Fang, F. He, J. Tu, Semi-surrogate modelling of droplets evaporation process via xgboost integrated cfd simulations, Science of The Total Environment (2023) 164968

2023
[125]

Seeger, Gaussian processes for machine learning, International journal of neural systems 14 (2004) 69–106

M. Seeger, Gaussian processes for machine learning, International journal of neural systems 14 (2004) 69–106

2004
[126]

Casenave, B

F. Casenave, B. Staber, X. Roynard, Mmgp: a mesh morphing gaussian process-based machine learning method for regression of physical problems under nonparametrized geometrical variability, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

2024
[127]

J. Wang, A. Hertzmann, D. J. Fleet, Gaussian process dynamical models, Advances in neural information processing systems 18 (2005)

2005
[128]

Damianou, M

A. Damianou, M. Titsias, N. Lawrence, Variational gaussian process dynamical systems, Advances in neural information processing systems 24 (2011)

2011
[129]

C. K. Williams, Prediction with gaussian processes: From linear regression to linear prediction and beyond, in: Learning in graphical models, Springer, 1998, pp. 599–621

1998
[130]

Saraswat, D

R. Saraswat, D. Jhanwar, M. Gupta, Enhanced solar power forecasting using xg boost and pca-based sky image analysis., Traitement du Signal 41 (2024)

2024
[131]

Cheng, Y

S. Cheng, Y. Jin, S. P. Harrison, C. Quilodrán-Casas, I. C. Prentice, Y.-K. Guo, R. Arcucci, Parameter flexible wildfire prediction using machine learning techniques: Forward and inverse modelling, Remote Sensing 14 (2022) 3228

2022
[132]

H. Gong, S. Cheng, Z. Chen, Q. Li, C. Quilodrán-Casas, D. Xiao, R. Arcucci, An efficient digital twin based on machine learning svd autoencoder and generalised latent assimilation for nuclear reactor physics, Annals of nuclear energy 179 (2022) 109431

2022
[133]

Kocijan, R

J. Kocijan, R. Murray-Smith, C. E. Rasmussen, A. Girard, Gaussian process model based predictive control, in: Proceedings of the 2004 American control conference, volume 3, IEEE, 2004, pp. 2214–2219

2004
[134]

J. M. Wang, D. J. Fleet, A. Hertzmann, Gaussian process dynamical models for human motion, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 30 (2007) 283–298. 54

2007
[135]

Csató, M

L. Csató, M. Opper, Sparse on-line gaussian processes, Neural computation 14 (2002) 641–668

2002
[136]

Nguyen-Tuong, J

D. Nguyen-Tuong, J. Peters, M. Seeger, Local gaussian process regression for real time online model learning, Advances in neural information processing systems 21 (2008)

2008
[137]

Alzubaidi, J

L. Alzubaidi, J. Zhang, A. J. Humaidi, A. Al-Dujaili, Y. Duan, O. Al-Shamma, J. Santamaría, M. A. Fadhel, M. Al-Amidie, L. Farhan, Review of deep learning: concepts, cnn architectures, challenges, applications, future directions, Journal of big Data 8 (2021) 1–74

2021
[138]

Z. Li, F. Liu, W. Yang, S. Peng, J. Zhou, A survey of convolutional neural networks: analysis, applications, and prospects, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 33 (2021) 6999–7019

2021
[139]

Sherstinsky, Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 404 (2020) 132306

A. Sherstinsky, Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 404 (2020) 132306

2020
[140]

Dhillon, G

A. Dhillon, G. K. Verma, Convolutional neural network: a review of models, methodologies and applica- tions to object detection, Progress in Artificial Intelligence 9 (2020) 85–112

2020
[141]

S. Sony, K. Dunphy, A. Sadhu, M. Capretz, A systematic review of convolutional neural network-based structural condition assessment techniques, Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111347

2021
[142]

Bhatnagar, Y

S. Bhatnagar, Y. Afshar, S. Pan, K. Duraisamy, S. Kaushik, Prediction of aerodynamic flow fields using convolutional neural networks, Computational Mechanics 64 (2019) 525–545

2019
[143]

X. Jin, K. Liu, J. Jiang, T. Xu, Z. Ding, X. Hu, Y. Huang, D. Zhang, S. Li, K. Xue, et al., Pattern recognition of distributed optical fiber vibration sensors based on resnet 152, IEEE Sensors Journal (2023)

2023
[144]

Coscia, L

D. Coscia, L. Meneghetti, N. Demo, G. Stabile, G. Rozza, A continuous convolutional trainable filter for modelling unstructured data, Computational Mechanics 72 (2023) 253–265

2023
[145]

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

2016
[146]

I. C. Duta, L. Liu, F. Zhu, L. Shao, Improved residual networks for image and video recognition, in: 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), IEEE, 2021, pp. 9415–9422

2020
[147]

Z. Feng, C. Du, J. An, Z. Zhang, Handle heavy workload in penalty-based machine-type communication: Using resnet, IEEE Wireless Communications Letters (2024)

2024
[148]

M. Kaur, A. Mohta, A review of deep learning with recurrent neural network, in: 2019 International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT), IEEE, 2019, pp. 460–465

2019
[149]

Beiran, C

M. Beiran, C. A. Spencer-Salmon, K. Rajan, A ‘programming’framework for recurrent neural networks, Nature Machine Intelligence 5 (2023) 570–571

2023
[150]

E. Z. Chen, P. Wang, X. Chen, T. Chen, S. Sun, Pyramid convolutional rnn for mri image reconstruction, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41 (2022) 2033–2047

2022
[151]

Farooq, M

J. Farooq, M. A. Bazaz, D. Rafiq, Multiscale autoencoder-rnn architecture for mitigating error accumula- tioninlong-termforecasting, in: 2023InternationalConferenceonEmergingTechniquesinComputational Intelligence (ICETCI), IEEE, 2023, pp. 271–275

2023
[152]

R. K. Inapakurthi, S. S. Miriyala, K. Mitra, Deep learning based dynamic behavior modelling and prediction of particulate matter in air, Chemical Engineering Journal 426 (2021) 131221

2021
[153]

Blandin, H

M. Blandin, H. K. Connor, D. S. Öztürk, A. M. Keesee, V. Pinto, M. S. Mahmud, C. Ngwira, S. Priyadarshi, Multi-variate lstm prediction of alaska magnetometer chain utilizing a coupled model approach, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 9 (2022) 846291. 55

2022
[154]

Adeli, L

E. Adeli, L. Sun, J. Wang, A. A. Taflanidis, An advanced spatio-temporal convolutional recurrent neural network for storm surge predictions, Neural Computing and Applications 35 (2023) 18971–18987

2023
[155]

Hernández, J

A. Hernández, J. M. Amigó, Attention mechanisms and their applications to complex systems, Entropy 23 (2021) 283

2021
[156]

R.Sevilla, S.Perotto, K.Morgan, MeshGenerationandAdaptation: Cutting-EdgeTechniques, volume30, Springer Nature, 2022

2022
[157]

Y. Xing, Q. Song, G. Cheng, Benefit of interpolation in nearest neighbor algorithms, SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science 4 (2022) 935–956

2022
[158]

Aurenhammer, R

F. Aurenhammer, R. Klein, Voronoi diagrams., Handbook of computational geometry 5 (2000) 201–290

2000
[159]

Lancaster, K

P. Lancaster, K. Salkauskas, Surfaces generated by moving least squares methods, Mathematics of computation 37 (1981) 141–158

1981
[160]

De Boor, A practical guide to splines, Springer-Verlag google schola 2 (1978) 4135–4195

C. De Boor, A practical guide to splines, Springer-Verlag google schola 2 (1978) 4135–4195

1978
[161]

Hormann, Barycentric interpolation, in: Approximation Theory XIV: San Antonio 2013, Springer, 2014, pp

K. Hormann, Barycentric interpolation, in: Approximation Theory XIV: San Antonio 2013, Springer, 2014, pp. 197–218

2013
[162]

M. S. Floater, K. Hormann, Surface parameterization: a tutorial and survey, Advances in multiresolution for geometric modelling (2005) 157–186

2005
[163]

Franke, Scattered data interpolation: tests of some methods, Mathematics of computation 38 (1982) 181–200

R. Franke, Scattered data interpolation: tests of some methods, Mathematics of computation 38 (1982) 181–200

1982
[164]

M. D. Buhmann, Radial basis functions, Acta numerica 9 (2000) 1–38

2000
[165]

Cressie, The origins of kriging, Mathematical geology 22 (1990) 239–252

N. Cressie, The origins of kriging, Mathematical geology 22 (1990) 239–252

1990
[166]

Oliver, R

M. Oliver, R. Webster, A tutorial guide to geostatistics: Computing and modelling variograms and kriging, Catena 113 (2014) 56–69

2014
[167]

H. Omre, K. B. Halvorsen, The bayesian bridge between simple and universal kriging, Mathematical Geology 21 (1989) 767–786

1989
[168]

Cressie, Spatial prediction and ordinary kriging, Mathematical Geology 20 (1988) 405–421

N. Cressie, Spatial prediction and ordinary kriging, Mathematical Geology 20 (1988) 405–421

1988
[169]

Zimmerman, C

D. Zimmerman, C. Pavlik, A. Ruggles, M. P. Armstrong, An experimental comparison of ordinary and universal kriging and inverse distance weighting, Mathematical Geology 31 (1999) 375–390

1999
[170]

P. E. Farrell, M. D. Piggott, C. C. Pain, G. J. Gorman, C. R. Wilson, Conservative interpolation between unstructured meshes via supermesh construction, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 198 (2009) 2632–2642

2009
[171]

D. C. Thomas, L. Engvall, S. K. Schmidt, K. Tew, M. A. Scott, U-splines: Splines over unstructured meshes, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 401 (2022) 115515

2022
[172]

D. M. Barker, W. Huang, Y.-R. Guo, A. Bourgeois, Q. Xiao, A three-dimensional variational data assimilation system for mm5: Implementation and initial results, Monthly Weather Review 132 (2004) 897–914

2004
[173]

Elbern, H

H. Elbern, H. Schmidt, Ozone episode analysis by four-dimensional variational chemistry data assimila- tion, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 106 (2001) 3569–3590

2001
[174]

Liu, Y.-S

H. Liu, Y.-S. Ong, X. Shen, J. Cai, When gaussian process meets big data: A review of scalable gps, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 31 (2020) 4405–4423. 56

2020
[175]

J.Li, A.D.Heap, A.Potter, J.J.Daniell, Applicationofmachinelearningmethodstospatialinterpolation of environmental variables, Environmental Modelling & Software 26 (2011) 1647–1659

2011
[176]

B. Liu, M. Wang, H. Foroosh, M. Tappen, M. Pensky, Sparse convolutional neural networks, in: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 806–814

2015
[177]

S. Wang, S. Suo, W.-C. Ma, A. Pokrovsky, R. Urtasun, Deep parametric continuous convolutional neural networks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 2589–2597

2018
[178]

M. Xu, S. Song, X. Sun, W. Zhang, Ucnn: A convolutional strategy on unstructured mesh, arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05207 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[179]

M.-Y.Wu, J.-Z.Peng, Z.-M.Qiu, Z.-H.Chen, Y.-B.Li, W.-T.Wu, Computationallyeffectiveestimationof supersonic flow field around airfoils using sparse convolutional neural network, Fluid Dynamics Research 55 (2023) 035504

2023
[180]

K. Wen, L. Guo, Z. Xia, S. Cheng, J. Chen, A hybrid simulation method integrating cfd and deep learning for gas–liquid bubbly flow, Chemical Engineering Journal 495 (2024) 153515

2024
[181]

Palha, L

A. Palha, L. Manickathan, C. S. Ferreira, G. van Bussel, A hybrid eulerian-lagrangian flow solver, arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.03368 (2015)

2015 arXiv
[182]

J. Hou, Y. Wang, B. Hou, J. Zhou, Q. Tian, Spatial simulation and prediction of air temperature based on cnn-lstm, Applied Artificial Intelligence 37 (2023) 2166235

2023
[183]

X. Cao, K. Wu, X. Geng, Q. Guan, Field detection of indoor fire threat situation based on lstm-kriging network, Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108686

2024
[184]

D. F. Watson, Computing the n-dimensional delaunay tessellation with application to voronoi polytopes, The computer journal 24 (1981) 167–172

1981
[185]

H. Wang, H. Zhou, S. Cheng, Dynamical system prediction from sparse observations using deep neural networks with voronoi tessellation and physics constraint, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 432 (2024) 117339

2024
[186]

Mohammadpour, H

M. Mohammadpour, H. Roshan, M. Arashpour, H. Masoumi, Machine learning assisted kriging to capture spatial variability in petrophysical property modelling, Marine and Petroleum Geology 167 (2024) 106967

2024
[187]

Plötz, S

T. Plötz, S. Roth, Neural nearest neighbors networks, Advances in Neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

2018
[188]

Obiols-Sales, A

O. Obiols-Sales, A. Vishnu, N. P. Malaya, A. Chandramowlishwaran, Surfnet: Super-resolution of turbu- lent flows with transfer learning using small datasets, in: 2021 30th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT), IEEE, 2021, pp. 331–344

2021
[189]

X.-H. Zhou, J. E. McClure, C. Chen, H. Xiao, Neural network–based pore flow field prediction in porous media using super resolution, Physical Review Fluids 7 (2022) 074302

2022
[190]

Kashefi, D

A. Kashefi, D. Rempe, L. J. Guibas, A point-cloud deep learning framework for prediction of fluid flow fields on irregular geometries, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021)

2021
[191]

C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, L. 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, 2017, pp. 652–660

2017
[192]

Y. Li, Z. Baorong, X. Xiaohong, L. Zijun, Application of a semivariogram based on a deep neural network to ordinary kriging interpolation of elevation data, Plos one 17 (2022) e0266942. 57

2022
[193]

H. Kang, Z. Tian, G. Chen, L. Li, T. Wang, Application of pod reduced-order algorithm on data-driven modeling of rod bundle, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 54 (2022) 36–48

2022
[194]

Y. Xu, Y. Sha, C. Wang, W. Cao, Y. Wei, Comparative studies of predictive models for unsteady flow fields based on deep learning and proper orthogonal decomposition, Ocean Engineering 272 (2023) 113935

2023
[195]

H. Qian, P. Ma, S. Gao, Y. Song, Soft reordering one-dimensional convolutional neural network for credit scoring, Knowledge-Based Systems 266 (2023) 110414

2023
[196]

Cheng, J

S. Cheng, J. Chen, C. Anastasiou, P. Angeli, O. K. Matar, Y.-K. Guo, C. C. Pain, R. Arcucci, Generalised latent assimilation in heterogeneous reduced spaces with machine learning surrogate models, Journal of Scientific Computing 94 (2023) 11

2023
[197]

Cuthill, J

E. Cuthill, J. McKee, Reducing the bandwidth of sparse symmetric matrices, in: Proceedings of the 1969 24th national conference, 1969, pp. 157–172

1969
[198]

H. Wang, K. Gupta, L. Davis, A. Shrivastava, Neural space-filling curves, in: European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, 2022, pp. 418–434

2022
[199]

H. Gao, L. Sun, J.-X. Wang, Phygeonet: Physics-informed geometry-adaptive convolutional neural net- works for solving parameterized steady-state pdes on irregular domain, Journal of Computational Physics 428 (2021) 110079

2021
[200]

X. Chen, J. Liu, Y. Pang, J. Chen, L. Chi, C. Gong, Developing a new mesh quality evaluation method based on convolutional neural network, Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics 14 (2020) 391–400

2020
[201]

C.Lemeunier, F.Denis, G.Lavoué, F.Dupont, Representationlearningof3dmeshesusinganautoencoder in the spectral domain, Computers & Graphics 107 (2022) 131–143

2022
[202]

C.-B. Zhou, Q. Wang, Y.-X. Ren, Machine learning optimization of compact finite volume methods on unstructured grids, Journal of Computational Physics 500 (2024) 112746

2024
[203]

Lingsch, M

L. Lingsch, M. Y. Michelis, E. de Bezenac, S. M. Perera, R. K. Katzschmann, S. Mishra, Beyond regular grids: Fourier-based neural operators on arbitrary domains, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19663 (2023)

2023
[204]

Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, A. Anandkumar, Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[205]

C. Q. Casas, R. Arcucci, Y. Guo, Urban air pollution forecasts generated from latent space representation, in: ICLR 2020 Workshop on Integration of Deep Neural Models and Differential Equations, 2020

2020
[206]

Fetni, T

S. Fetni, T. Q. D. Pham, T. V. Hoang, H. S. Tran, L. Duchêne, X.-V. Tran, A. M. Habraken, Capabilities of auto-encoders and principal component analysis of the reduction of microstructural images; application on the acceleration of phase-field simulations, Computational Materi...

2023
[207]

C.-H. Pham, S. Ladjal, A. Newson, Pca-ae: Principal component analysis autoencoder for organising the latent space of generative networks, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision 64 (2022) 569–585

2022
[208]

Plaut, From principal subspaces to principal components with linear autoencoders, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10253 (2018)

E. Plaut, From principal subspaces to principal components with linear autoencoders, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10253 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[209]

Bourlard, Y

H. Bourlard, Y. Kamp, Auto-association by multilayer perceptrons and singular value decomposition, Biological cybernetics 59 (1988) 291–294

1988
[210]

M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, P. Veličković, Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges, 2021

2021
[211]

Veličković, Everything is connected: Graph neural networks, Current Opinion in Structural Biology 79 (2023) 102538

P. Veličković, Everything is connected: Graph neural networks, Current Opinion in Structural Biology 79 (2023) 102538. 58

2023
[212]

T.N.Kipf, M.Welling, Semi-supervisedclassificationwithgraphconvolutionalnetworks, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

2017
[213]

Hamilton, Z

W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, J. Leskovec, Inductive representation learning on large graphs, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, 2017

2017
[214]

Defferrard, X

M. Defferrard, X. Bresson, P. Vandergheynst, Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering, in: D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29, Curran Associates, Inc., 2016

2016
[215]

F. Wu, A. Souza, T. Zhang, C. Fifty, T. Yu, K. Weinberger, Simplifying graph convolutional networks, in: K. Chaudhuri, R. Salakhutdinov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 201...

2019
[216]

Velickovic, G

P. Velickovic, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, Y. Bengio, Graph attention networks, stat 1050 (2018) 4

2018
[217]

Brody, U

S. Brody, U. Alon, E. Yahav, How attentive are graph attention networks?, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL:https://openreview.net/forum?id=F72ximsx7C1

2022
[218]

Gilmer, S

J. Gilmer, S. S. Schoenholz, P. F. Riley, O. Vinyals, G. E. Dahl, Neural message passing for quantum chemistry, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2017, pp. 1263–1272

2017
[219]

Battaglia, J

P. Battaglia, J. B. C. Hamrick, V. Bapst, A. Sanchez, V. Zambaldi, M. Malinowski, A. Tacchetti, D. Ra- poso, A. Santoro, R. Faulkner, C. Gulcehre, F. Song, A. Ballard, J. Gilmer, G. E. Dahl, A. Vaswani, K. Allen, C. Nash, V. J. Langston, C. Dyer, N. Heess, D. Wierstra, P. Kohl...

2018 arXiv
[221]

De Avila Belbute-Peres, T

F. De Avila Belbute-Peres, T. Economon, Z. Kolter, Combining differentiable PDE solvers and graph neural networks for fluid flow prediction, in: H. D. III, A. Singh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 ofProceedings of Mach...

2020
[222]

X. He, Y. Wang, J. Li, Flow completion network: Inferring the fluid dynamics from incomplete flow information using graph neural networks, Physics of Fluids 34 (2022)

2022
[223]

Z. Li, K. Meidani, P. Yadav, A. Barati Farimani, Graph neural networks accelerated molecular dynamics, The Journal of Chemical Physics 156 (2022)

2022
[224]

W. Liu, M. Yagoubi, M. Schoenauer, Multi-resolution graph neural networks for pde approximation, in: Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning–ICANN 2021: 30th International Conference on Arti- ficial Neural Networks, Bratislava, Slovakia, September 14–17, 2021, Proceedi...

2021
[226]

J. Suk, P. de Haan, P. Lippe, C. Brune, J. M. Wolterink, Mesh neural networks for se (3)-equivariant hemodynamics estimation on the artery wall, Computers in Biology and Medicine 173 (2024) 108328

2024
[227]

S. Li, M. Zhang, M. D. Piggott, End-to-end wind turbine wake modelling with deep graph representation learning, Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120928. 59

2023
[228]

Sanchez-Gonzalez, J

A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, J. Godwin, T. Pfaff, R. Ying, J. Leskovec, P. Battaglia, Learning to simulate complex physics with graph networks, in: H. D. III, A. Singh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 ofProceedings of Machine Lea...

2020
[229]

W. song, M. Zhang, J. G. Wallwork, J. Gao, Z. Tian, F. Sun, M. D. Piggott, J. Chen, Z. Shi, X. Chen, J. Wang, M2n: mesh movement networks for pde solvers, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022)

2022
[230]

Barwey, V

S. Barwey, V. Shankar, V. Viswanathan, R. Maulik, Multiscale graph neural network autoencoders for interpretable scientific machine learning, Journal of Computational Physics 495 (2023) 112537

2023
[231]

Cordonnier, A

J.-B. Cordonnier, A. Loukas, M. Jaggi, Multi-head attention: Collaborate instead of concatenate, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16362 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[232]

Z. Li, K. Meidani, A. B. Farimani, Transformer for partial differential equations’ operator learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13671 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[233]

B. Xu, Y. Zhou, X. Bian, Self-supervised learning based on transformer for flow reconstruction and prediction, Physics of Fluids 36 (2024)

2024
[234]

Rampášek, M

L. Rampášek, M. Galkin, V. P. Dwivedi, A. T. Luu, G. Wolf, D. Beaini, Recipe for a general, powerful, scalable graph transformer, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022)

2022
[235]

M. J. Hutchinson, C. L. Lan, S. Zaidi, E. Dupont, Y. W. Teh, H. Kim, Lietransformer: equivariant self-attention for lie groups, International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2021)

2021
[236]

H. Qu, C. Li, sitian Qian, Particle transformer for jet tagging, International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2022)

2022
[237]

Geneva, N

N. Geneva, N. Zabaras, Transformers for modeling physical systems, Neural Networks 146 (2022)

2022
[238]

S. Li, A. Robert, A. A. Faisal, M. D. Piggott, Learning to optimise wind farms with graph transformers, Applied Energy 359 (2024) 122758

2024
[239]

Z. Gao, X. Shi, H. Wang, Y. Zhu, Y. B. Wang, M. Li, D.-Y. Yeung, Earthformer: Exploring space-time transformers for earth system forecasting, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022)

2022
[240]

X. Han, H. Gao, T. Pfaff, J.-X. Wang, L.-P. Liu, Predicting physics in mesh-reduced space with temporal attention, International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

2022
[241]

Zhang, C

M. Zhang, C. Wang, S. Kramer, J. G. Wallwork, S. Li, J. Liu, X. Chen, M. D. Piggott, Towards universal mesh movement networks, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024)

2024
[242]

Kovachki, Z

N. Kovachki, Z. Li, B. Liu, K. Azizzadenesheli, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, A. Anandkumar, Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes, Journal of Machine Learning Research 24 (2023)

2023
[243]

Cao, Choose a transformer: Fourier or Galerkin, Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS) 34 (2021)

S. Cao, Choose a transformer: Fourier or Galerkin, Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS) 34 (2021)

2021
[244]

Kissas, J

G. Kissas, J. Seidman, L. F. Guilhoto, V. M. Preciado, G. J.Pappas, P. Perdikari, Learning operators with coupled attention, Journal of Machine Learning Research (2022)

2022
[245]

Nguyen, M

T. Nguyen, M. Pham, T. Nguyen, K. Nguyen, S. Osher, N. Ho, Fourierformer: Transformer meets generalized fourier integral theorem, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022)

2022
[246]

Z. Hao, C. Ying, Z. Wang, H. Su, Y. Dong, S. Liu, Z. Cheng, J. Zhu, J. Song, Gnot: A general neural operator transformer for operator learning, International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2023). 60

2023
[247]

Z. Li, D. Shu, A. B. Farimani, Scalable transformer for pde surrogate modeling, Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS) 36 (2023)

2023
[248]

Brown, B

T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Che...

2020
[249]

K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y. Li, P. Dollar, R. Girshick, Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners, IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) (2022)

2022
[250]

McCabe, B

M. McCabe, B. R.-S. Blancard, L. H. Parker, R. Ohana, M. Cranmer, A. Bietti, M. Eickenberg, S. Golkar, G. Krawezik, F. Lanusse, M. Pettee, T. Tesileanu, K. Cho, S. Ho, Multiple physics pretraining for physical surrogate models, https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02994 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[251]

Subramanian, P

S. Subramanian, P. Harrington, K. Keutzer, W. Bhimji, D. Morozov, M. Mahoney, A. Gholami, Towards foundation models for scientific machine learning: Characterizing scaling and transfer behavior, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2023)

2023
[252]

Mialon, Q

G. Mialon, Q. Garrido, H. Lawrence, D. Rehman, Y. LeCun, B. T. Kiani, Self-supervised learning with lie symmetries for partial differential equations, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05432 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[253]

Z. Hao, C. Su, S. Liu, J. Berner, C. Ying, H. Su, A. Anandkumar, J. Song, J. Zhu, Dpot: Auto-regressive denoising operator transformer for large-scale pde pre-training, https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03542 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[254]

Y. Chen, J. Zhao, L. Huang, H. Chen, 3d mesh transformer: A hierarchical neural network with local shape tokens, Neurocomputing 514 (2022) 328–340

2022
[255]

Yoshiyasu, Deformable mesh transformer for 3d human mesh recovery, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp

Y. Yoshiyasu, Deformable mesh transformer for 3d human mesh recovery, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17006–17015

2023
[256]

Siddiqui, A

Y. Siddiqui, A. Alliegro, A. Artemov, T. Tommasi, D. Sirigatti, V. Rosov, A. Dai, M. Nießner, Meshgpt: Generating triangle meshes with decoder-only transformers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15475 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[257]

Y. Chen, J. Zhao, Q. Qiu, A transformer-based capsule network for 3d part–whole relationship learning, Entropy 24 (2022) 678

2022
[258]

Y. Hong, K. Zhang, J. Gu, S. Bi, Y. Zhou, D. Liu, F. Liu, K. Sunkavalli, T. Bui, H. Tan, Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d, International Conference on Learning Representations (2024)

2024
[259]

Zhang, Z

L. Zhang, Z. Wang, Q. Zhang, Q. Qiu, A. Pang, H. Jiang, W. Yang, L. Xu, J. Yu, Clay: A control- lable large-scale generative model for creating high-quality 3d assets, ACM Transactions on Graphics (SIGGRAPH) 2024 (2024)

2024
[260]

Q. Li, Z. Han, X.-M. Wu, Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning, The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18) (2018)

2018
[261]

Pandey, S

L. Pandey, S. Wood, J. Wood, Are vision transformers more data hungry than newborn visual systems?, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

2024
[262]

H. Lee, I. S. Kang, Neural algorithm for solving differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 91 (1990) 110–131

1990
[263]

I. E. Lagaris, A. Likas, D. I. Fotiadis, Artificial neural networks for solving ordinary and partial differential equations, IEEE transactions on neural networks 9 (1998) 987–1000. 61

1998
[264]

Schiassi, R

E. Schiassi, R. Furfaro, C. Leake, M. De Florio, H. Johnston, D. Mortari, Extreme theory of functional connections: A fast physics-informed neural network method for solving ordinary and partial differential equations, Neurocomputing 457 (2021) 334–356

2021
[265]

S. Wang, H. Wang, P. Perdikaris, Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equa- tions with physics-informed deeponets, Science advances 7 (2021) eabi8605

2021
[266]

X. Sun, B. Croke, S. Roberts, A. Jakeman, Comparing methods of randomizing sobol sequences for improving uncertainty of metrics in variance-based global sensitivity estimation, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 210 (2021) 107499

2021
[267]

Faure, C

H. Faure, C. Lemieux, Generalized halton sequences in 2008: A comparative study, ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) 19 (2009) 1–31

2009
[268]

Wong, W.-S

T.-T. Wong, W.-S. Luk, P.-A. Heng, Sampling with hammersley and halton points, Journal of graphics tools 2 (1997) 9–24

1997
[269]

Zheng, C

Y. Zheng, C. Hu, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Physics-informed recurrent neural network modeling for predictive control of nonlinear processes, Journal of Process Control 128 (2023) 103005

2023
[270]

Fang, A high-efficient hybrid physics-informed neural networks based on convolutional neural network, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 33 (2021) 5514–5526

Z. Fang, A high-efficient hybrid physics-informed neural networks based on convolutional neural network, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 33 (2021) 5514–5526

2021
[271]

Robert, Monte carlo statistical methods, 1999

C. Robert, Monte carlo statistical methods, 1999

1999
[272]

Martino, V

L. Martino, V. Elvira, F. Louzada, Effective sample size for importance sampling based on discrepancy measures, Signal Processing 131 (2017) 386–401

2017
[273]

M. A. Nabian, R. J. Gladstone, H. Meidani, Efficient training of physics-informed neural networks via importance sampling, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 36 (2021) 962–977

2021
[274]

C. L. Zhao, Solving allen-cahn and cahn-hilliard equations using the adaptive physics informed neural networks, Communications in Computational Physics 29 (2020)

2020
[275]

McClenny, U

L. McClenny, U. Braga-Neto, Self-adaptive physics-informed neural networks using a soft attention mechanism, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.04544 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[276]

S. Shi, D. Liu, Z. Zhao, Non-fourier heat conduction based on self-adaptive weight physics-informed neural networks, in: 2021 40th Chinese control conference (CCC), IEEE, 2021, pp. 8451–8456

2021
[277]

A. D. Jagtap, K. Kawaguchi, G. E. Karniadakis, Adaptive activation functions accelerate convergence in deep and physics-informed neural networks, Journal of Computational Physics 404 (2020) 109136

2020
[278]

A.D.Jagtap, K.Kawaguchi, G.EmKarniadakis, Locallyadaptiveactivationfunctionswithsloperecovery for deep and physics-informed neural networks, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 476 (2020) 20200334

2020
[279]

Tancik, P

M. Tancik, P. Srinivasan, B. Mildenhall, S. Fridovich-Keil, N. Raghavan, U. Singhal, R. Ramamoorthi, J. Barron, R. Ng, Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains, Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020) 7537–7547

2020
[280]

Sirignano, K

J. Sirignano, K. Spiliopoulos, Dgm: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations, Journal of computational physics 375 (2018) 1339–1364

2018
[281]

Sharma, L

P. Sharma, L. Evans, M. Tindall, P. Nithiarasu, Stiff-pdes and physics-informed neural networks, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 30 (2023) 2929–2958

2023
[282]

Sharma, L

P. Sharma, L. Evans, M. Tindall, P. Nithiarasu, Hyperparameter selection for physics-informed neural networks (pinns)–application to discontinuous heat conduction problems, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals (2023) 1–15. 62

2023
[283]

A. D. Jagtap, G. E. Karniadakis, Extended physics-informed neural networks (xpinns): A generalized space-time domain decomposition based deep learning framework for nonlinear partial differential equa- tions, Communications in Computational Physics 28 (2020)

2020
[284]

Shukla, A

K. Shukla, A. D. Jagtap, G. E. Karniadakis, Parallel physics-informed neural networks via domain decomposition, Journal of Computational Physics 447 (2021) 110683

2021
[285]

Z. Hu, A. D. Jagtap, G. E. Karniadakis, K. Kawaguchi, When do extended physics-informed neural networks (xpinns) improve generalization?, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 44 (2022) A3158– A3182

2022
[286]

Moseley, A

B. Moseley, A. Markham, T. Nissen-Meyer, Finite basis physics-informed neural networks (fbpinns): a scalable domain decomposition approach for solving differential equations, Advances in Computational Mathematics 49 (2023) 62

2023
[287]

Oldenburg, F

J. Oldenburg, F. Borowski, A. Öner, K.-P. Schmitz, M. Stiehm, Geometry aware physics informed neural network surrogate for solving navier–stokes equation (gapinn), Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 9 (2022) 8

2022
[288]

M. Kast, J. S. Hesthaven, Positional embeddings for solving pdes with evolutional deep neural networks, Journal of Computational Physics (2024) 112986

2024
[289]

C. Zeng, T. Burghardt, A. M. Gambaruto, Rbf-pinn: Non-fourier positional embedding in physics- informed neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08367 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[290]

Huang, T

X. Huang, T. Alkhalifah, Efficient physics-informed neural networks using hash encoding, Journal of Computational Physics 501 (2024) 112760

2024
[291]

L. Z. Zhao, X. Ding, B. A. Prakash, Pinnsformer: A transformer-based framework for physics-informed neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11833 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[292]

Lee, Mesh-independent operator learning for partial differential equations, in: ICML 2022 2nd AI for Science Workshop, 2022

S. Lee, Mesh-independent operator learning for partial differential equations, in: ICML 2022 2nd AI for Science Workshop, 2022

2022
[293]

N. R. Franco, A. Manzoni, P. Zunino, Mesh-informed neural networks for operator learning in finite element spaces, Journal of Scientific Computing 97 (2023) 35

2023
[294]

Z. Li, D. Z. Huang, B. Liu, A. Anandkumar, Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries, Journal of Machine Learning Research 24 (2023) 1–26

2023
[295]

S. Liu, Z. Hao, C. Ying, H. Su, Z. Cheng, J. Zhu, Nuno: A general framework for learning parametric pdes withnon-uniformdata, in: InternationalConferenceonMachineLearning, PMLR,2023, pp.21658–21671

2023
[296]

Liu-Schiaffini, J

M. Liu-Schiaffini, J. Berner, B. Bonev, T. Kurth, K. Azizzadenesheli, A. Anandkumar, Neural operators with localized integral and differential kernels, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16845 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[297]

J. He, S. Koric, D. Abueidda, A. Najafi, I. 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 (2024) 117130

2024
[298]

Jnini, H

A. Jnini, H. Goordoyal, S. Dave, A. Korobenko, F. Vella, K. Fraser, Physics-constrained deep- onet for surrogate cfd models: a curved backward-facing step case, in: ICLR 2024 Workshop on AI4DifferentialEquations In Science, 2024

2024
[299]

Haghighat, U

E. Haghighat, U. bin Waheed, G. Karniadakis, En-deeponet: An enrichment approach for enhancing the expressivity of neural operators with applications to seismology, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 420 (2024) 116681

2024
[300]

B. Chen, C. Wang, W. Li, H. Fu, A hybrid decoder-deeponet operator regression framework for unaligned observation data, Physics of Fluids 36 (2024). 63

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Pfaff, M

T. Pfaff, M. Fortunato, A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, P. W. Battaglia, Learning mesh-based simulation with graph networks, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

2021

[2] [220]

Ogoke, K

F. Ogoke, K. Meidani, A. Hashemi, A. B. Farimani, Graph convolutional networks applied to unstructured flow field data, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2 (2021) 045020

2021

[3] [225]

J. Chen, E. Hachem, J. Viquerat, Graph neural networks for laminar flow prediction around random two-dimensional shapes, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021)

2021

[4] [1]

Carleo, I

G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, L. Zdeborová, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Reviews of Modern Physics 91 (2019) 045002

2019

[5] [2]

Willard, X

J. Willard, X. Jia, S. Xu, M. Steinbach, V. Kumar, Integrating physics-based modeling with machine learning: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04919 1 (2020) 1–34

arXiv 2020

[6] [3]

Fukami, K

K. Fukami, K. Fukagata, K. Taira, Super-resolution analysis via machine learning: a survey for fluid flows, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics 37 (2023) 421–444

2023

[7] [4]

S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, P. Koumoutsakos, Machine learning for fluid mechanics, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 52 (2020) 477–508.arXiv:1905.11075

arXiv 2020

[8] [5]

A. Katz, V. Sankaran, Mesh quality effects on the accuracy of cfd solutions on unstructured meshes, Journal of Computational Physics 230 (2011) 7670–7686

2011