Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Distribution-Free Uncertainty-Aware Virtual Sensing via Conformalized Neural Operators

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single trained neural operator, paired with Monte Carlo dropout and split conformal calibration, produces distribution-free 95% spatial prediction intervals in virtual sensing.

desk verdict A practical MC-dropout + conformal wrapper for DeepONets, but the z=1.96 multiplier in Eq. (6) breaks the conformal guarantee and makes the reported 98–99% coverage overcoverage, not near-nominal calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11574 v1 pith:27RIC2II submitted 2025-07-15 cs.LG cs.AIstat.ML

Kazuma Kobayashi , Shailesh Garg , Farid Ahmed , Souvik Chakraborty , Syed Bahauddin Alam This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIstat.ML MSC 68T07
keywords conformalpredictionMonteCarlodropoutneuraloperatorsDeepONetuncertaintyquantificationvirtualsensingdistribution-freeintervalscosmicradiationdose
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

The paper proposes the Conformalized Monte Carlo Operator (CMCO), a way to attach calibrated uncertainty bands to neural-operator predictions used for virtual sensing. Its central claim is that a single trained Sequential DeepONet can be turned into a probabilistic surrogate by running Monte Carlo dropout forward passes at inference time, and that split conformal calibration of the per-location residuals then produces distribution-free prediction intervals targeting 95% marginal coverage, with no retraining, no ensembling, and no custom loss. On turbulent-flow kinetic energy, elastoplastic stress, and global cosmic-radiation dose reconstructed from sparse neutron monitors, the calibrated intervals reach average coverage of 99.68%, 98.96%, and 98.63%, respectively. The method matters because real-time safety monitoring needs uncertainty estimates that remain valid without distributional assumptions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the calibrated interval $$I(u_t) = [\mu(u_t) - z \cdot q \cdot \$\sigma$(u_t), \; \mu(u_t) + z \cdot q \cdot \$\sigma$(u_t)],$$ with $z = 1.96$. The mean $\mu$ and spread $\sigma$ come from $n_c$ stochastic forward passes of the trained DeepONet with dropout active at inference, and the vector $q$ is a per-location conformal quantile: for each spatial index $j$, $q_j$ is the $\lceil (1-\alpha)(n+1)\rceil / n$ quantile of the normalized calibration residuals $|y_{i,j} - \mu_j(u_i)|/\sigma_j(u_i)$. That normalization is what makes the bandwidth distribution-free: it rescales the MC-dropout variance by the observed error at each location, so the interval width adapts spatially through data alone, with no new training.

What would settle it

Take the calibrated dose model, hold out a solar-storm day not represented in the calibration period, and compute the fraction of spatial grid points covered. A coverage far below 95% — the paper already reports 1.14% on May 10, 2023 — would falsify the claim that near-nominal coverage holds on any new input, and would show the guarantee is conditional on exchangeability rather than universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that conformalized MC dropout gives operator learning a lightweight, distribution-free UQ layer: for a test input, the interval is $I(u_t) = [\mu(u_t) - z \cdot q \cdot \sigma(u_t), \; \mu(u_t) + z \cdot q \cdot \sigma(u_t)]$ with $z = 1.96$, where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are the mean and standard deviation of $n_c$ stochastic forward passes of the same trained network, and $q$ is a vector of per-location conformal quantiles computed from calibration residuals. The paper reports that this construction achieves average empirical coverage of 99.68% on lid-driven cavity turbulence, 98.96% on elastoplastic deformation, and 98.63% on cosmic-radiation dose estimation, all near or above the nominal 95% level. It also reports that under-coverage concentrates in hard samples: the per-sample minimum coverage across cases is 92.59%, 53.33%, and 1.14%, with the lowest value occurring on an atypical radiation day, so the guarantee is marginal and breaks under distribution shift.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee rests on calibration and test input-output pairs being exchangeable, meaning the residual pattern seen during calibration must still be representative when the model is deployed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing trained Sequential DeepONets can be deployed with uncertainty by enabling dropout and storing $n_c$ forward passes, with no architectural change or retraining.
  • One calibration pass produces intervals whose marginal coverage is guaranteed by split conformal theory without assuming Gaussian errors or any parametric family.
  • The intervals are spatially resolved, so a monitoring system can flag dangerous regions such as cavity corners, necking zones, or the South Atlantic Anomaly rather than reporting a single global uncertainty.
  • Failure-rate and relative-error scatter plots can serve as a diagnostic to identify samples where the model is simultaneously inaccurate and overconfident, which is the dangerous regime for safety-critical sensing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the conformal quantile $q_j$ is estimated independently at each location, the method leaves spatial structure in $q$ unexploited; smoothing $q$ or conditioning it on local density and gradient strength could recover the under-covered tail samples without inflating widths elsewhere.
  • The 1.14% minimum coverage on an atypical radiation day is a concrete measure of how fast a fixed calibration set goes stale, so a natural sequel is an adaptive or online conformal update that monitors exchangeability and refreshes $q$ when it breaks.
  • The same normalized-residual calibration can wrap any base uncertainty proxy, so MC dropout is replaceable by heteroscedastic head uncertainties or randomized priors without changing the conformal layer.
  • In digital-twin deployments, calibration data and operational data will rarely be exchangeable, and the paper's own Table 3 numbers quantify the size of the safety margin operators should assume rather than treating 95% coverage as a hard guarantee.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CMCO, a framework that combines Monte Carlo dropout with split conformal prediction on a sequential DeepONet to produce distribution-free prediction intervals for virtual sensing. It is evaluated on three tasks: turbulent kinetic energy reconstruction in a lid-driven cavity, von Mises stress field prediction in elastoplastic deformation, and global cosmic radiation dose estimation from sparse neutron monitor inputs. The central claim is that CMCO achieves near-nominal 95% marginal coverage with minimal computational overhead.

Significance. If the coverage guarantee were correctly implemented, CMCO would be a practically attractive UQ wrapper for neural operators: it requires only a single trained model, has low inference overhead, and is evaluated on three physically meaningful problems. The paper also provides extensive empirical coverage statistics and visualizations. However, the central theoretical claim is undermined by a nonstandard interval construction that inflates the intervals, and the reported coverage is systematically above nominal, so the results as presented do not substantiate the headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (6)] The prediction interval is defined as mu(ut) +/- z * q * sigma(ut) with z = 1.96, where q is the conformal quantile of normalized residuals from Eq. (5). Standard split conformal prediction with normalized nonconformity scores would construct the interval as mu(ut) +/- q * sigma(ut), which has marginal coverage at least 1 - alpha under exchangeability. The extra multiplier z changes the effective coverage to P(e <= 1.96 q), which is not controlled at the nominal level and systematically inflates the intervals. This invalidates the theoretical guarantee claimed in Section 5 and explains the 98-99% average coverage in Table 3.
  2. [Section 4, Table 3] The reported average empirical coverages are 99.68% (Case I), 98.96% (Case II), and 98.63% (Case III), all far above the nominal 95% target. The abstract and Section 5 describe these as 'near-nominal', which is inaccurate. Moreover, the minimum coverages of 92.59%, 53.33%, and 1.14% show that averaging hides severe undercoverage for individual samples. The paper should report the full coverage distribution or bootstrap confidence intervals, and the overcoverage should be acknowledged as a direct consequence of the z multiplier in Eq. (6).
  3. [Section 3.3 and Figure 9] The split conformal guarantee relies on exchangeability of calibration and test data. In the cosmic radiation case, the test inputs are 7-day sequences of neutron monitor readings ordered in time; atypical days such as May 10, 2023 (Figure 9b) are not exchangeable with the calibration set, which likely explains the catastrophic 1.14% coverage for that sample. The manuscript does not address this violation or propose a remedy (e.g., sliding-window or weighted conformal prediction), so the distribution-free claim is not established for this application.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 9 caption] The caption states that 'Prediction intervals were obtained using conformalized RP-DeepONet', but the paper proposes CMCO (conformalized MC-dropout DeepONet). This is inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (4)] The normalized residual divides by sigma_j(u_i), which can be zero or near zero in regions where the MC-dropout ensemble is degenerate. The authors should specify a numerical stability correction (a small epsilon) for this division.
  3. [Section 3.1 vs. Appendix] The main text states that the lid-driven cavity branch network is a four-layer GRU with Tanh activations, while the appendix specifies 'Type: LSTM' and ReLU activations for the same case. These inconsistencies should be reconciled.
  4. [Section 2.3, Eq. (6)] The notation 'z · q · sigma' is ambiguous because q and sigma are vectors and z is a scalar. The paper should explicitly state that the multiplication is elementwise, or use a clearer componentwise notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: CMCO's empirical coverage claim is grounded in held-out conformal calibration, not in a self-citation or a fitted target; the z=1.96 factor is a validity bug, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The conformal quantile q_j in Eq. (5) is estimated from a calibration split that is disjoint from the test samples used for coverage evaluation (Table 1). The coverage metric in Eq. (7) is evaluated on held-out test inputs, so the headline coverage numbers are not forced by the calibration fit. The calibration rule is attributed to the authors' own prior work [31], but split conformal quantile calibration is a standard external result whose validity does not depend on [31]; the self-citation is therefore not load-bearing. The reuse of the prior cosmic-dose model [2] is as a component, again with independent test evaluation. The main methodological weakness is that Eq. (6) inserts a fixed Gaussian multiplier z=1.96 after computing the conformal quantile, so the implemented interval is wider than the standard split-conformal interval and the reported 98-99% coverages exceed nominal; the 1.14% worst-case coverage also shows that exchangeability can fail. These are correctness and validity concerns, not circular reductions: no prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to a self-cited claim.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The method depends on the exchangeability assumption of conformal prediction, the scale supplied by MC dropout, the validity of the simulation data, and the usual neural network training assumptions. The free parameters are mostly hyperparameters plus the unexplained z multiplier and the data-fitted conformal quantile.

free parameters (5)
  • z (Gaussian multiplier) = 1.96
    Multiplying the conformal quantile by 1.96 in Eq. (6) is chosen by hand, is not part of the split conformal guarantee, and inflates empirical coverage above nominal.
  • q_j (per-location conformal quantile) = computed via Eq. (5) from calibration residuals
    A per-output-location scale fitted to calibration data; it is the conformal calibration step, but is a data-fitted quantity.
  • MC dropout rate p = 0.1
    Dropout probability used in all trunk networks; chosen by hand, affects the scale of sigma and hence interval widths.
  • Number of MC forward passes n_c = 10
    Number of stochastic forward passes at inference; larger n_c reduces variance of sigma estimates.
  • Nominal level alpha = 0.05
    Target 95% coverage; conventional but a modeling choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Calibration and test samples are exchangeable (split conformal premise)
    Required for the per-location quantiles in Eq. (5) to give marginal coverage; invoked in Section 4 when citing 'theoretical guarantees of conformal prediction'.
  • domain assumption MC dropout provides a meaningful dispersion scale sigma
    The normalized residuals in Eq. (4) use sigma from MC dropout as the scale; if sigma is poorly calibrated, the conformal quantiles become unstable.
  • domain assumption Simulation codes (ANSYS Fluent RANS, Abaqus J2 plasticity, PARMA/PHITS) provide ground truth
    All labels come from these simulations; any systematic simulator error is absorbed into the model and not captured by uncertainty intervals.
  • standard math Standard neural network training converges and generalizes
    The surrogate models are trained with Adam for 200 epochs; no convergence or identifiability analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distribution-Free Uncertainty-Aware Virtual Sensing via Conformalized Neural Operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27RIC2II

@misc{pith2026250711574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distribution-Free Uncertainty-Aware Virtual Sensing via Conformalized Neural Operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27RIC2II}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11574}
}
read the original abstract

Robust uncertainty quantification (UQ) remains a critical barrier to the safe deployment of deep learning in real-time virtual sensing, particularly in high-stakes domains where sparse, noisy, or non-collocated sensor data are the norm. We introduce the Conformalized Monte Carlo Operator (CMCO), a framework that transforms neural operator-based virtual sensing with calibrated, distribution-free prediction intervals. By unifying Monte Carlo dropout with split conformal prediction in a single DeepONet architecture, CMCO achieves spatially resolved uncertainty estimates without retraining, ensembling, or custom loss design. Our method addresses a longstanding challenge: how to endow operator learning with efficient and reliable UQ across heterogeneous domains. Through rigorous evaluation on three distinct applications: turbulent flow, elastoplastic deformation, and global cosmic radiation dose estimation-CMCO consistently attains near-nominal empirical coverage, even in settings with strong spatial gradients and proxy-based sensing. This breakthrough offers a general-purpose, plug-and-play UQ solution for neural operators, unlocking real-time, trustworthy inference in digital twins, sensor fusion, and safety-critical monitoring. By bridging theory and deployment with minimal computational overhead, CMCO establishes a new foundation for scalable, generalizable, and uncertainty-aware scientific machine learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11574 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed conformal UQ framework. (a) Baseline DeepONet inference with dropout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lid-driven cavity setup with time-dependent lid velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Geometry and mesh of the dogbone specimen with fixed left boundary and time-dependent displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Uncertainty quantification analysis of Conformalized MC-dropout DeepONet. (a) Empirical coverage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ground truth, mean prediction, and calibrated confidence intervals of turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Uncertainty quantification analysis of Conformalized MC-dropout DeepONet. (a) Empirical coverage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ground truth, mean prediction, and calibrated confidence intervals for the plastic deformation task. (a) Sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Uncertainty quantification analysis of Conformalized MC-dropout DeepONet. (a) Empirical coverage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) A well-calibrated case with high empirical coverage (100.0%) and low mean relative L2 error (0.31%), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kazuma Kobayashi and Syed Bahauddin Alam. Explainable, interpretable, and trustworthy ai for an intelligent digital twin: A case study on remaining useful life.Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 129:107620, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    From proxies to fields: Spatiotemporal reconstruction of global radiation from sparse sensor sequences

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Samrendra Roy, Seid Koric, Diab Abueidda, and Syed Bahauddin Alam. From proxies to fields: Spatiotemporal reconstruction of global radiation from sparse sensor sequences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12045, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Virtual sensing to enable real-time monitoring of inaccessible locations & unmeasurable parameters

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Farid Ahmed, and Syed Bahauddin Alam. Virtual sensing to enable real-time monitoring of inaccessible locations & unmeasurable parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00107, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Virtual sensing-enabled digital twin framework for real-time monitoring of nuclear systems leveraging deep neural operators

    Raisa Hossain, Farid Ahmed, Kazuma Kobayashi, Seid Koric, Diab Abueidda, and Syed Bahauddin Alam. Virtual sensing-enabled digital twin framework for real-time monitoring of nuclear systems leveraging deep neural operators. npj Materials Degradation, 9(1):21, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Deep neural operator-driven real-time inference to enable digital twin solutions for nuclear energy systems

    Kazuma Kobayashi and Syed Bahauddin Alam. Deep neural operator-driven real-time inference to enable digital twin solutions for nuclear energy systems. Scientific reports, 14(1):2101, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    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

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Spherical fourier neural operators: Learning stable dynamics on the sphere

    Boris Bonev, Thorsten Kurth, Christian Hundt, Jaideep Pathak, Maximilian Baust, Karthik Kashinath, and Anima Anandkumar. Spherical fourier neural operators: Learning stable dynamics on the sphere. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2806–2823. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    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

    arXiv 2003

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    Wavelet neural operator for solving parametric partial differential equations in computational mechanics problems

    Tapas Tripura and Souvik Chakraborty. Wavelet neural operator for solving parametric partial differential equations in computational mechanics problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 404:115783, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A wavelet neural operator based elastography for localization and quantification of tumors

    Tapas Tripura, Abhilash Awasthi, Sitikantha Roy, and Souvik Chakraborty. A wavelet neural operator based elastography for localization and quantification of tumors. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 232:107436, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    Tianping Chen and Hong Chen. Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems.IEEE transactions on neural networks, 6(4):911–917, 1995

    1995

  6. [14]

    Mionet: Learning multiple-input operators via tensor product

    Pengzhan Jin, Shuai Meng, and Lu Lu. Mionet: Learning multiple-input operators via tensor product. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 44(6):A3490–A3514, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Sequential deep operator networks (s-deeponet) for predicting full-field solutions under time-dependent loads

    Junyan He, Shashank Kushwaha, Jaewan Park, Seid Koric, Diab Abueidda, and Iwona Jasiuk. Sequential deep operator networks (s-deeponet) for predicting full-field solutions under time-dependent loads. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127:107258, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Predictions of transient vector solution fields with sequential deep operator network

    Junyan He, Shashank Kushwaha, Jaewan Park, Seid Koric, Diab Abueidda, and Iwona Jasiuk. Predictions of transient vector solution fields with sequential deep operator network. Acta Mechanica, 235(8):5257–5272, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bridging sequential deep operator network and video diffusion: Residual refinement of spatio-temporal pde solutions

    Jaewan Park, Farid Ahmed, Kazuma Kobayashi, Seid Koric, Syed Bahauddin Alam, Iwona Jasiuk, and Diab Abueidda. Bridging sequential deep operator network and video diffusion: Residual refinement of spatio-temporal pde solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06133, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fully convolutional network enhanced deeponet-based surrogate of predicting the travel-time fields

    Yifan Mei, Yijie Zhang, Xueyu Zhu, Rongxi Gou, and Jinghuai Gao. Fully convolutional network enhanced deeponet-based surrogate of predicting the travel-time fields. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024. 15 Distribution-Free UQ Virtual Sensing

    2024

  11. [19]

    Porous-deeponet: Learning the solution operators of parametric reactive transport equations in porous media

    Pan Huang, Yifei Leng, Cheng Lian, and Honglai Liu. Porous-deeponet: Learning the solution operators of parametric reactive transport equations in porous media. Engineering, 39:94–103, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Ai-driven uncertainty quantification & multi-physics approach to evaluate cladding materials in a microreactor

    Alexander Foutch, Kazuma Kobayashi, Ayodeji Alajo, Dinesh Kumar, and Syed Bahauddin Alam. Ai-driven uncertainty quantification & multi-physics approach to evaluate cladding materials in a microreactor. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 186:105793, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Degradation-aware and machine learning- driven uncertainty quantification in crystal plasticity finite element: Texture-driven plasticity in 316l stainless steel

    Dinesh Kumar, Eralp Demir, Julio Spadotto, Kazuma Kobayashi, Syed Bahauddin Alam, Brian Connolly, Ed Pickering, Paul Wilcox, David Knowles, and Mahmoud Mostafavi. Degradation-aware and machine learning- driven uncertainty quantification in crystal plasticity finite element: Te...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ai-driven non-intrusive uncertainty quantification of advanced nuclear fuels for digital twin-enabling technology

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Dinesh Kumar, and Syed Bahauddin Alam. Ai-driven non-intrusive uncertainty quantification of advanced nuclear fuels for digital twin-enabling technology. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 172:105177, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Practical applications of gaussian process with uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin for accident-tolerant fuel

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Dinesh Kumar, Matthew Bonney, and Syed Alam. Practical applications of gaussian process with uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin for accident-tolerant fuel. In Handbook of Smart Energy Systems, pages 503–514. Springer, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin enabling technology: Application for bison fuel performance code

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Dinesh Kumar, Matthew Bonney, Souvik Chakraborty, Kyle Paaren, Shoaib Usman, and Syed Alam. Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin enabling technology: Application for bison fuel performance code. In Handbook of Smart Energy Syst...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Quantitative risk assessment of a high power density small modular reactor (SMR) core using uncertainty and sensitivity analyses

    Dinesh Kumar et al. Quantitative risk assessment of a high power density small modular reactor (SMR) core using uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Energy, 227:120400, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainties in composite materials selection and design

    Dinesh Kumar et al. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainties in composite materials selection and design. Composite Structures, 279:114680, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Bayesian neural networks: An introduction and survey

    Ethan Goan and Clinton Fookes. Bayesian neural networks: An introduction and survey. Case Studies in Applied Bayesian Data Science: CIRM Jean-Morlet Chair, Fall 2018, pages 45–87, 2020

    2018

  20. [28]

    Hands- on bayesian neural networks—a tutorial for deep learning users

    Laurent Valentin Jospin, Hamid Laga, Farid Boussaid, Wray Buntine, and Mohammed Bennamoun. Hands- on bayesian neural networks—a tutorial for deep learning users. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 17(2):29–48, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles

    Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift

    Yaniv Ovadia, Emily Fertig, Jie Ren, Zachary Nado, David Sculley, Sebastian Nowozin, Joshua Dillon, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, and Jasper Snoek. Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift. Advances in neural information processi...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Distribution free uncertainty quantification for neuroscience-inspired deep neural operators

    Shailesh Garg and Souvik Chakraborty. Distribution free uncertainty quantification for neuroscience-inspired deep neural operators. Journal of Computational Physics, 534:114012, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Gaussian processes in machine learning

    Carl Edward Rasmussen. Gaussian processes in machine learning. In Summer school on machine learning, pages 63–71. Springer, 2003

    2003

  25. [33]

    Randomized prior functions for deep reinforcement learning

    Ian Osband, John Aslanides, and Albin Cassirer. Randomized prior functions for deep reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Analytical model for estimating terrestrial cosmic ray fluxes nearly anytime and anywhere in the world: Extension of parma/expacs

    Tatsuhiko Sato. Analytical model for estimating terrestrial cosmic ray fluxes nearly anytime and anywhere in the world: Extension of parma/expacs. PloS one, 10(12):e0144679, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Analytical model for estimating the zenith angle dependence of terrestrial cosmic ray fluxes

    Tatsuhiko Sato. Analytical model for estimating the zenith angle dependence of terrestrial cosmic ray fluxes. PloS one, 11(8):e0160390, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    EXPACS: EXcel-based program for calculating atmospheric cosmic-ray spectrum

    Japan Atomic Energy Agency. EXPACS: EXcel-based program for calculating atmospheric cosmic-ray spectrum. http://phits.jaea.go.jp/expacs/. Accessed: November 4, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Benchmark study of particle and heavy-ion transport code system using shielding integral benchmark archive and database for accelerator-shielding experiments

    Yosuke Iwamoto, Shintaro Hashimoto, Tatsuhiko Sato, Norihiro Matsuda, Satoshi Kunieda, Yurdunaz Çelik, Naoya Furutachi, and Koji Niita. Benchmark study of particle and heavy-ion transport code system using shielding integral benchmark archive and database for accelerator-shiel...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Recent improvements of the particle and heavy ion transport code system–phits version 3.33

    Tatsuhiko Sato, Yosuke Iwamoto, Shintaro Hashimoto, Tatsuhiko Ogawa, Takuya Furuta, Shin-Ichiro Abe, Takeshi Kai, Yusuke Matsuya, Norihiro Matsuda, Yuho Hirata, et al. Recent improvements of the particle and heavy ion transport code system–phits version 3.33. Journal of Nuclea...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.