arxiv: 2605.11293 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Pressure reconstruction from error-embedded gradient measurements: a Gaussian-process generalization of Green's function integration

Mohamed Amine Abassi, Qi Wang, Xiaofeng Liu, Zejian You

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 02:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

keywords pressure reconstructionGaussian process regressionGreen's function integrationturbulent flowsinverse problemsgradient measurementsuncertainty estimation

0 comments

The pith

Gaussian process regression generalizes Green's function integration to reconstruct pressure from noisy gradient data without boundary conditions.

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

This paper shows how to reconstruct pressure fields in turbulent flows from measurements of pressure gradients that contain errors. It introduces a Gaussian Process Regression approach that treats the problem probabilistically, automatically handling noise through denoising and providing built-in uncertainty estimates at each point. A key theoretical finding is that the established Green's Function Integration method is simply the special case of this approach when there is no noise. The method is tested on data from homogeneous isotropic turbulence and performs at least as well as the conventional technique, with advantages in noisy or sparse data scenarios. It also extends naturally to three dimensions using efficient computational solvers.

Core claim

The central claim is that Green's Function Integration (GFI) is the noiseless limit of Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) for reconstructing scalar fields from gradient measurements. In two dimensions this limit uses a logarithmic kernel and in three dimensions an inverse-distance kernel. With an empirical mixture-of-Gaussians kernel fitted to the pressure correlation function from turbulence data, the GPR framework matches GFI performance while eliminating the need for boundary conditions and supplying pointwise posterior variance estimates whose standardized residuals satisfy |z| < 2 over 95% of grid points.

What carries the argument

Gaussian Process Regression with a fitted mixture-of-Gaussians kernel, shown to reduce to Green's Function Integration in the zero-noise limit.

Load-bearing premise

The pressure field is assumed to obey Gaussian statistics with a stationary correlation structure accurately captured by a mixture-of-Gaussians kernel fitted to the data.

What would settle it

Comparing the GPR reconstruction errors against GFI on the Johns Hopkins Turbulence Database data with added noise levels; if GPR does not show lower or equal error and |z|<2 compliance in over 95% of points, the claim would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11293 by Mohamed Amine Abassi, Qi Wang, Xiaofeng Liu, Zejian You.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (a) An example of one-dimensional GPR when observations of the values of a smooth function are available. Red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Noise-free reconstruction of the 256 × 256 JHTDB isotropic-turbulence pressure slice: (left) true field p; (center) GFI reconstruction (εGFI = 0.008); (right) full 2D GPR reconstruction using the empirical MoG-3 kernel (23) fitted to the true-field correlation function, with a tiny positive regularizer σε = 10−2 max |∇p| (εGPR = 0.019). Both methods recover the field to visual accuracy. with the expectatio… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Empirical-kernel design for the 2D GPR reconstruction. (a) Azimuthally averaged correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Relative reconstruction RMSE ε versus gradient-observation noise amplitude η = ∆/ max |∇p| on the stride-4 subsample of the JHTDB isotropic-turbulence slice (N = 64, L = π/2, the same operating point as Figs. 7 and 13(a)). Each marker is the mean of 15 independent uniform-noise realizations with the empirical MoG-3 kernel; error bars ±σ. Linear axes; η runs from 5% to 80%, covering the realistic PIV-noise… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Posterior uncertainty quantification on the 2D JHTDB benchmark at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Impulse response of the GPR and GFI inverse operators to a unit-amplitude single-pixel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Radial energy spectrum Ep(|k|) of the true pressure field (black), the GFI reconstruction (red dashed), and the GPR reconstruction (blue), computed by the annular-shell average of Eq. (25) on the stride-4 subsample of the JHTDB slice (N = 64, L = π/2). (a) Exact gradient observations (η = 0). (b) error-embedded observations at η = 80%. The GFI noise shelf is clearly visible above the truth at intermediate-… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Singular values λm of the GFI (black, solid) and MoG-3 GPR (blue, solid) operators on a 256 × 256 cell grid spanning L = π, at the benchmark operating point σε/σp ≈ 24 (equivalent to the η = 40% gradient-noise level). Light-blue dashed curves show MoG-3 at additional σε/σp ∈ {98, 49, 12, 6} to illustrate the convergence to the GFI spectrum as σε → 0. This is not coincidental: both operators admit closed-fo… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Leading twelve singular modes of the GFI (rows 1–2) and MoG- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The relative RMSE εrms vs gradient noise η on 643 isotropic1024coarse subcubes at two domain extents: (a) L = π/8, N = 128; (b) L = π/2, N = 256. Curves are plotted for plane-wise + LS (red squares), tensor-product 3D GPR (blue circles)—both with the same empirical MoG-3 kernel re-fitted to each cube—and dense 3D GFI (green triangles) as a hyperparameter-free reference. For each GPR method, the filled sol… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Cube-surface comparison at 40% gradient noise on a JHTDB 643 isotropic1024coarse subcube using the empirical MoG-3 kernel for GPR. Each cube shows the pressure on the three visible outer faces. (a) true pressure, (b) 3D GFI reconstruction, (c) plane-wise + LS reconstruction, (d) tensor-product 3D GPR reconstruction, (e) full-volume error probability density functions for the three reconstructions. εrms d… view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Three-dimensional iso-surface rendering of the (a) GFI and (b) GPR (MoG- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Trend of reconstruction error with noise and density of observation. (a) Relative RMSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Reconstructing scalar fields from error-embedded gradient measurements is a fundamental linear inverse problem with broad applications in computational physics. Conventional approaches, such as Poisson-based solvers and the Green's Function Integration (GFI) method, require explicit boundary conditions extracted from the same error-embedded observations. In this study we assess the accuracy of a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) framework for reconstructing pressure fields in turbulent flows from error-embedded pressure-gradient data derived from kinematic measurements. The probabilistic nature of GPR inherently provides tunable denoising, eliminates the need for boundary conditions, and produces a pointwise posterior-variance error estimate. A central theoretical result of the present work is that GFI is the noiseless limit of GPR, which on the unbounded plane reduces to the well-known logarithmic kernel and in three dimensions to the inverse-distance kernel. The framework is validated on two-dimensional slices and three-dimensional subdomains of a forced homogeneous isotropic turbulence from the Johns Hopkins Turbulence Database. With an empirical mixture-of-Gaussians (MoG-$3$) kernel fitted directly to the pressure correlation function, GPR performs at least as well as GFI. In situations with under-resolved data or high noise, GPR outperforms GFI, while delivering a calibrated pointwise posterior uncertainty whose standardized residuals satisfy $|z|<2$ over $95\%$ of grid points. The framework extends to three dimensions through a tensor-product Kronecker solver coupled to conjugate gradients with close to $\mathcal{O}(N^3\log N)$ cost. A closed-form error lower bound on a periodic cube is derived for the GPR operator, with the residual gap attributable to boundary contamination on non-periodic finite domains.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper cleanly shows GFI as the zero-noise limit of GPR and applies a data-fitted MoG-3 kernel to pressure reconstruction, but the kernel choice limits how far the gains generalize.

read the letter

The central new piece is the demonstration that Green's function integration emerges exactly as the noiseless limit of Gaussian process regression. On the unbounded plane this recovers the logarithmic kernel and in 3D the inverse-distance kernel, which is a straightforward algebraic result once the GPR kernel is set to the appropriate Green's function. They then build a practical method around an empirical mixture-of-Gaussians kernel fitted to the pressure correlation function from the Johns Hopkins turbulence database. On 2D slices and 3D subdomains the GPR version matches GFI in the low-noise regime and outperforms it when gradients are noisy or under-resolved, while supplying a calibrated posterior variance that satisfies |z|<2 on 95% of points. The 3D implementation uses a Kronecker-product structure with conjugate gradients to keep the scaling near O(N^3 log N), and they supply a closed-form error lower bound for the periodic-cube case. These elements together give a probabilistic route that avoids explicit boundary conditions, which is a genuine practical advantage for experimental data. The derivation of the limit itself is independent of the data and holds up. The main limitation is that the MoG-3 parameters are tuned directly to the same correlation statistics used for validation. This works for homogeneous isotropic turbulence but introduces a circularity that makes it unclear how much of the reported improvement travels to other flows or geometries. The error bound also applies only on periodic domains, and the authors correctly note that boundary contamination appears on finite non-periodic boxes. Full method details on how the kernel fit is performed and how the posterior is computed are not visible in the abstract, so some implementation questions remain. This is useful reading for anyone who reconstructs pressure from noisy gradient measurements in fluids and wants uncertainty estimates without boundary data. The theoretical link and the 3D solver are solid enough that the paper should go to peer review; the core claim is reproducible from the stated assumptions and the numerical results are at least directionally convincing on the database they chose.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) framework for reconstructing pressure fields from error-embedded gradient measurements in turbulent flows. It establishes theoretically that Green's Function Integration (GFI) emerges as the zero-noise limit of GPR, reducing to the logarithmic kernel on the unbounded plane and the inverse-distance kernel in three dimensions. The approach is validated on 2D slices and 3D subdomains from the Johns Hopkins Turbulence Database using an empirical mixture-of-Gaussians (MoG-3) kernel fitted to the pressure correlation function, claiming performance at least as good as GFI (and better under noise or under-resolution) along with calibrated pointwise posterior uncertainty estimates satisfying |z|<2 over 95% of points. A closed-form error lower bound is derived for the periodic case, with an extension to 3D via Kronecker-product solvers.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a principled probabilistic generalization of GFI that incorporates denoising, eliminates explicit boundary conditions, and supplies uncertainty quantification. This could be impactful for experimental and numerical fluid dynamics applications involving gradient data, particularly where noise is significant. The theoretical reduction to known kernels and the reproducible validation on public turbulence data are notable strengths.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and validation description: the MoG-3 kernel parameters are fitted directly to the pressure correlation function computed from the same JHU turbulence data used for performance testing and outperformance claims under noise. This data-dependent fitting makes the practical superiority claims dependent on the specific dataset rather than demonstrating robustness on independent data or with a priori kernels.
[Abstract] Abstract: the report that standardized residuals satisfy |z|<2 over 95% of grid points is presented without accompanying details on the exact posterior-variance formula, the noise model used in the GPR, or how calibration was verified across the range of noise levels and resolutions tested. This leaves the uncertainty-quantification claim only partially verifiable from the provided information.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] The computational complexity is stated as close to O(N^3 log N) for the 3D Kronecker solver; a brief derivation or reference for this scaling would improve clarity.
[Validation] The manuscript should explicitly state the domain (periodic vs. non-periodic) and boundary handling used in the GFI comparisons to allow direct assessment of the reported performance gap.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and validation description: the MoG-3 kernel parameters are fitted directly to the pressure correlation function computed from the same JHU turbulence data used for performance testing and outperformance claims under noise. This data-dependent fitting makes the practical superiority claims dependent on the specific dataset rather than demonstrating robustness on independent data or with a priori kernels.

Authors: We agree that the MoG-3 kernel is fitted to the pressure correlation function derived from the same JHU turbulence dataset used for validation. This choice allows the method to leverage the actual statistical structure of the pressure field for optimal performance in this setting, but it does mean the reported gains are specific to a data-adapted kernel rather than a universal a priori choice. The theoretical result that GFI emerges as the zero-noise limit of GPR holds for arbitrary kernels. To address the concern, we have revised the abstract to explicitly state that the kernel is fitted to the test data's correlation function and have added results in the manuscript using a standard squared-exponential kernel (without data-specific fitting) to demonstrate performance in the a priori case. These changes clarify the scope of the outperformance claims. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the report that standardized residuals satisfy |z|<2 over 95% of grid points is presented without accompanying details on the exact posterior-variance formula, the noise model used in the GPR, or how calibration was verified across the range of noise levels and resolutions tested. This leaves the uncertainty-quantification claim only partially verifiable from the provided information.

Authors: We agree that the abstract requires additional detail for full verifiability of the uncertainty quantification. The GPR noise model assumes additive Gaussian noise on the gradient measurements. The posterior variance follows the standard formula k(x,x) - k(x,X)(K + σ²I)^{-1}k(X,x), and calibration was assessed by computing standardized residuals z across multiple noise levels and resolutions, confirming the reported coverage. We have revised the abstract to briefly reference the noise model and calibration procedure while pointing to the relevant equations and figures in the main text for the exact formulas and verification details. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The central theoretical result—that GFI is the noiseless limit of GPR, reducing to the logarithmic kernel on the unbounded plane or inverse-distance kernel in 3D—is presented as a mathematical limiting case derived from the GPR posterior mean under zero observation noise and a kernel matching the Green's function of the integration operator. This equivalence is not a reduction to the paper's inputs by construction but follows from the standard properties of Gaussian processes applied to the linear inverse problem; the abstract and description indicate an algebraic derivation rather than an ansatz or fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The empirical MoG-3 kernel is fitted to pressure correlations from the Johns Hopkins Turbulence Database solely for practical validation and performance comparison, not as part of the theoretical claim, and the framework is benchmarked against GFI on the same external data source with reported posterior uncertainty calibration. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work, or self-definitional loops appear in the provided text; the derivation chain remains self-contained against the external turbulence database benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard GPR assumptions plus a data-fitted kernel; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

MoG-3 kernel parameters
Mixture-of-Gaussians kernel with three components is fitted directly to the pressure correlation function extracted from the turbulence data.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The pressure field is a zero-mean Gaussian random field with stationary isotropic statistics
Required for the GPR prior and for the kernel to be translation-invariant on the periodic cube or unbounded domain.
domain assumption Gradient measurements are linear observations of the field corrupted by additive Gaussian noise
Standard GPR observation model invoked throughout the reconstruction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5606 in / 1499 out tokens · 53364 ms · 2026-05-13T02:05:11.253236+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
A central theoretical result ... GFI is the noiseless limit of GPR, which on the unbounded plane reduces to the well-known logarithmic kernel and in three dimensions to the inverse-distance kernel.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
empirical mixture-of-Gaussians (MoG-3) kernel fitted directly to the pressure correlation function

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[1]

X. Liu, J. Katz, Measurements of pressure distribution by integrating the material acceleration, in: Cav03-GS-14-001, Fifth international symposium on cavitation (CAV2003), Osaka, Japan, 2003, pp. 1–4

work page 2003
[2]

X. Liu, J. Katz, Instantaneous pressure and material acceleration measurements using a four-exposure piv system, Experiments in fluids 41 (2006) 227–240

work page 2006
[3]

D. A. Buchta, J. B. Freund, The near-field pressure radiated by planar high-speed free-shear-flow turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 832 (2017) 383–408

work page 2017
[4]

S. F. Wu, Methods for reconstructing acoustic quantities based on acoustic pressure measurements, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124 (2008) 2680–2697

work page 2008
[5]

R. A. Gramann, D. S. Dolling, Detection of turbulent boundary-layer separation using fluctuating wall pressure signals, AIAA journal 28 (1990) 1052–1056

work page 1990
[6]

Cerretelli, K

C. Cerretelli, K. Kirtley, Boundary layer separation control with fluidic oscillators (2009)

work page 2009
[7]

Yeung, D

P. Yeung, D. Donzis, K. Sreenivasan, Dissipation, enstrophy and pressure statistics in turbulence simulations at high reynolds numbers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 700 (2012) 5–15

work page 2012
[8]

M. A. Abassi, Q. Wang, X. Liu, Adjoint-based data assimilation in a subdomain using omnidirectional- integration-enabled pressure dirichlet boundary conditions, Physics of Fluids 37 (2025)

work page 2025
[9]

T. A. Zaki, Turbulence from an observer perspective, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 57 (2025) 311–334. 23

work page 2025
[10]

X. Liu, J. R. Moreto, S. Siddle-Mitchell, Instantaneous pressure reconstruction from measured pressure gradient using rotating parallel ray method, in: 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2016, p. 1049

work page 2016
[11]

X. Liu, J. Katz, Pressure–rate-of-strain, pressure diffusion, and velocity–pressure-gradient tensor mea- surements in a cavity flow, AIAA Journal 56 (2018) 3897–3914

work page 2018
[12]

J. R. Moreto, W. J. Reeder, R. Budwig, D. Tonina, X. Liu, Experimentally mapping water surface elevation, velocity, and pressure fields of an open channel flow around a stalk, Geophysical Research Letters 49 (2022) e2021GL096835

work page 2022
[13]

X. Liu, J. R. Moreto, Error propagation from the piv-based pressure gradient to the integrated pressure by the omnidirectional integration method, Measurement Science and Technology 31 (2020) 055301

work page 2020
[14]

Q. Wang, X. Liu, Green’s function integral method for pressure reconstruction from measured pressure gradient and the interpretation of omnidirectional integration, Physics of Fluids 35 (2023)

work page 2023
[15]

Zigunov, J

F. Zigunov, J. J. Charonko, One-shot omnidirectional pressure integration through matrix inversion, Measurement Science and Technology 35 (2024) 125301

work page 2024
[16]

C. E. Rasmussen, C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, MIT Press, 2006

work page 2006
[17]

Schulz, M

E. Schulz, M. Speekenbrink, A. Krause, A tutorial on gaussian process regression: Modelling, exploring, and exploiting functions, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 85 (2018) 1–16

work page 2018
[18]

V. Mons, Q. Wang, T. A. Zaki, Kriging-enhanced ensemble variational data assimilation for scalar- source identification in turbulent environments, Journal of Computational Physics 398 (2019) 108856

work page 2019
[19]

Z. You, Q. Wang, X. Liu, Pressure reconstruction from the measured pressure gradient using gaussian process regression, in: AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, 2023, p. 0414

work page 2023
[20]

Solak, R

E. Solak, R. Murray-Smith, W. E. Leithead, D. J. Leith, C. E. Rasmussen, Derivative observations in Gaussian process models of dynamic systems, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15, 2003, pp. 1057–1064

work page 2003
[21]

Wahba, Spline Models for Observational Data, volume 59 ofCBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, 1990

G. Wahba, Spline Models for Observational Data, volume 59 ofCBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, 1990

work page 1990
[22]

Hastie, R

T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, J. Friedman, et al., The elements of statistical learning, 2009

work page 2009
[23]

Kimeldorf, G

G. Kimeldorf, G. Wahba, Some results on Tchebycheffian spline functions, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 33 (1971) 82–95

work page 1971
[24]

Kanagawa, P

M. Kanagawa, P. Hennig, D. Sejdinovic, B. K. Sriperumbudur, Gaussian processes and kernel methods: A review on connections and equivalences, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02582 (2018)

work page arXiv 2018
[25]

A. J. Smola, B. Schölkopf, Learning with kernels, volume 4, GMD-Forschungszentrum Informationstech- nik Berlin, Germany, 1998

work page 1998
[26]

Graepel, Solving noisy linear operator equations by gaussian processes: Application to ordinary and partial differential equations, in: ICML, volume 3, 2003, pp

T. Graepel, Solving noisy linear operator equations by gaussian processes: Application to ordinary and partial differential equations, in: ICML, volume 3, 2003, pp. 234–241

work page 2003
[27]

Cockayne, C

J. Cockayne, C. Oates, T. Sullivan, M. Girolami, Probabilistic numerical methods for pde-constrained bayesian inverse problems, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 1853, AIP Publishing LLC, 2017, p. 060001

work page 2017
[28]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. E. Karniadakis, Machine learning of linear differential equations using gaussian processes, Journal of Computational Physics 348 (2017) 683–693

work page 2017
[29]

L. P. Swiler, M. Gulian, A. L. Frankel, C. Safta, J. D. Jakeman, A survey of constrained gaussian process regression: Approaches and implementation challenges, Journal of Machine Learning for Modeling and Computing 1 (2020). 24

work page 2020
[30]

A. P. Valentine, M. Sambridge, Gaussian process models—i. a framework for probabilistic continuous inverse theory, Geophysical Journal International 220 (2020) 1632–1647

work page 2020
[31]

Dalton, A

D. Dalton, A. Lazarus, H. Gao, D. Husmeier, Boundary constrained gaussian processes for robust physics-informed machine learning of linear partial differential equations, Journal of Machine Learning Research 25 (2024) 1–61

work page 2024
[32]

M.Pförtner, I.Steinwart, P.Hennig, J.Wenger, Physics-informedgaussianprocessregressiongeneralizes linear pde solvers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.12474 (2022)

work page arXiv 2022
[33]

X. Li, M. Lange-Hegermann, B. Raitˇ a, Gaussian process regression for inverse problems in linear pdes, IFAC-PapersOnLine 59 (2025) 196–201

work page 2025
[34]

E. J. Parish, K. Duraisamy, A paradigm for data-driven predictive modeling using field inversion and machine learning, Journal of computational physics 305 (2016) 758–774

work page 2016
[35]

M. Wang, Q. Wang, T. A. Zaki, Discrete adjoint of fractional-step incompressible navier-stokes solver in curvilinear coordinates and application to data assimilation, Journal of Computational Physics 396 (2019) 427–450

work page 2019
[36]

M. R. Hestenes, E. Stiefel, Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 49 (1952) 409–436. doi:10.6028/jres.049.044

work page doi:10.6028/jres.049.044 1952
[37]

Y. Li, E. Perlman, M. Wan, Y. Yang, C. Meneveau, R. Burns, S. Chen, A. Szalay, G. Eyink, A public turbulence database cluster and applications to study lagrangian evolution of velocity increments in turbulence, Journal of Turbulence (2008) N31

work page 2008
[38]

Perlman, R

E. Perlman, R. Burns, Y. Li, C. Meneveau, Data exploration of turbulence simulations using a database cluster, in: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, 2007, pp. 1–11

work page 2007
[39]

Aronszajn, Theory of reproducing kernels, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 68 (1950) 337–404

N. Aronszajn, Theory of reproducing kernels, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 68 (1950) 337–404

work page 1950
[40]

H. Taha, C. Gonzalez, M. Shorbagy, A minimization principle for incompressible fluid mechanics, Physics of Fluids 35 (2023)

work page 2023
[41]

Strang, A proposal for Toeplitz matrix calculations, Studies in Applied Mathematics 74 (1986) 171–176

G. Strang, A proposal for Toeplitz matrix calculations, Studies in Applied Mathematics 74 (1986) 171–176

work page 1986
[42]

Greengard, J

L. Greengard, J. Strain, The fast Gauss transform, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Com- puting 12 (1991) 79–94

work page 1991
[43]

J. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Katz, Gpu-based, parallel-line, omni-directional integration of measured pressure gradient field to obtain the 3d pressure distribution, Experiments in Fluids 60 (2019) 58

work page 2019
[44]

Bochner, Harmonic analysis and the theory of probability, Courier Corporation, 2005

S. Bochner, Harmonic analysis and the theory of probability, Courier Corporation, 2005

work page 2005
[45]

M. L. Stein, Interpolation of spatial data: some theory for kriging, Springer Science & Business Media, 1999

work page 1999
[46]

Q. Wang, M. Wang, T. A. Zaki, What is observable from wall data in turbulent channel flow?, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 941 (2022) A48. doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.295

work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.295 2022
[47]

Q. Wang, Y. Hasegawa, T. A. Zaki, Spatial reconstruction of steady scalar sources from remote mea- surements in turbulent flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 870 (2019) 316–352

work page 2019
[48]

E. C. Howell, J. D. Hanson, Development of a non-parametric gaussian process model in the three- dimensional equilibrium reconstruction code v3fit, Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (2020) 905860102. doi:10.1017/S0022377819000813

work page doi:10.1017/s0022377819000813 2020
[49]

Y. Yang, Y. Xue, W. Zhao, S. Yao, C. Li, C. Wu, Fast flow field prediction of three-dimensional hypersonic vehicles using an improved gaussian process regression algorithm, Physics of Fluids 36 (2024). 25

work page 2024