Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Structure-preserving uncertainty quantification for GENERIC dynamics

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read S-PENNs attach block-specific epinets to a frozen N-GENNs backbone so that every sampled GENERIC dynamics conserves energy and produces nonnegative entropy.

desk verdict A well-engineered epinet-based UQ wrapper for constrained GENERIC dynamics whose central 'second law by construction' claim does not survive the PICNN composition argument as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12624 v1 pith:NETB2H36 submitted 2026-08-12 cs.LG physics.comp-ph

Zequn He , Celia Reina This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGphysics.comp-ph
keywords structure-preservingmachinelearningepistemicneuralnetworksGENERICdynamicsthermodynamicconsistencyuncertaintyquantificationconformalpredictionN-GENNsphysics-informed
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

Uncertainty quantification usually works by randomizing weights or outputs, which can push a physics-constrained model out of the admissible set. S-PENNs instead attach a small epinet to each thermodynamic building block of a pretrained N-GENN—energy, entropy, reversible operator, and dissipation potential—and drive all epinets with one shared epistemic index. Because the perturbed blocks are reassembled through the same skew-symmetry and projection reparameterizations used by N-GENNs, every draw of the index defines a GENERIC vector field that conserves energy and produces nonnegative entropy by construction. Split conformal prediction then rescales the ensemble variance into intervals with finite-sample marginal coverage. On a harmonic oscillator coupled to a heat bath, an idealized chemical motor, and a one-dimensional viscoplastic model, the method attains near-ensemble accuracy at one to three orders of magnitude lower cost.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the S-PENN block-epinet assembly. Each constrained building block of the N-GENNs backbone is augmented with an epinet conditioned on stop-gradient base features and the same epistemic index $z$; for the global tensor $B$, an input-independent linear epinet $B_\vartheta(z)=B_\psi+\sum_{n=1}^{d_z} z_n \phi_n^B$ keeps the perturbation state-independent. The same two reparameterizations as in N-GENNs then close the admissible class: the reversible operator is sandwiched by skew-symmetric matrices $A^i_\vartheta(z)=B^i_\vartheta(z)-(B^i_\vartheta(z))^\top$ built from the entropy gradient, which kills $L_\vartheta DS_\vartheta$, and the dissipation potential is projected with $P_{E_\vartheta}(x,z)=I-DE_\vartheta DE_\vartheta^\top/\|DE_\vartheta\|^2$, which kills the energy dependence and preserves convexity when the epistemic-index distribution has nonnegative support. One draw of $z$ therefore yields one admissible GENERIC vector field $g_\vartheta(x,z)=L_\vartheta(x,z)DE_\vartheta(x,z)+D_{x^*}\Xi_\vartheta(x,x^*,z)|_{x^*=DS_\vartheta(x,z)}$.

What would settle it

Take the harmonic-oscillator benchmark and corrupt the training states with additive Gaussian noise, for example with standard deviation $0.05$ on $q$ and $p$, then retrain the S-PENNs two-stage procedure. If the median energy rate across 2000 sampled rollouts deviates from zero by more than about $10^{-5}$ (against the $10^{-7}$ scale reported for clean data) or the pointwise minimum entropy-production rate becomes negative on the test set, then the noise-free premise is doing load-bearing work rather than the architecture alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that hard constraints need not be re-derived for each uncertainty sample: the admissible class itself can be made into a sample space. Treating the deterministic N-GENNs as frozen base networks, S-PENNs adds block-specific epinets $\sigma_\varphi(\cdot,z)$ to $E_\psi$, $S_\psi$, $\tilde{L}_\psi$, and $\tilde{\Xi}_\psi$, with a dedicated input-independent linear epinet for the global skew-symmetry tensor $B_\psi$. Reassembling through $L_\vartheta(x,z)=Q_{S_\vartheta}(x,z)^\top \tilde{L}_\vartheta(x,z)Q_{S_\vartheta}(x,z)$ and the energy-orthogonal projection reparameterization of the dissipation potential enforces both GENERIC degeneracy conditions for each fixed $z$, while a partially input-convex network keeps the dissipation potential convex. Every sampled rollout therefore obeys $\dot{E}=0$ and $\dot{S}\ge 0$ at the trajectory level, and the shared index couples the block perturbations so that uncertainty propagates coherently through the coupled dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes noise-free, fully observed state trajectories and a frozen, well-specified pretrained base model; if the data are noisy or the base dynamics are misspecified, the thermodynamic constraints are imposed on a contaminated vector field and the learned dynamics and its uncertainty can be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single trained S-PENN can produce thousands of physically admissible rollouts from one frozen backbone, so downstream design, control, and reliability computations can average over stochastic dynamics without filtering out invalid samples.
  • Split conformal calibration makes interval coverage a finite-sample guarantee under trajectory-level exchangeability, independent of how well the predictive distribution is specified.
  • The cost gap measured on the three benchmarks—one to three orders of magnitude less wall time than deep ensembles—should grow with model dimension, since epinet sampling avoids training complete constrained models.
  • The same block-epinet recipe extends to other hard- or soft-constrained models, including frozen or partially frozen pretrained models, whenever the epinet is chosen from the same admissible function class as the block it perturbs.
  • The input-independent epinet branch gives a construction for global unknown parameters in inverse problems, with parameter estimates comparable to a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Bayesian physics-informed neural network on the Kraichnan–Orszag and Korteweg–de Vries benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension not pursued in the paper: the same idea applies to symplectic, metriplectic, and polyconvex constitutive networks, as long as each epinet respects the closure property of its block; a natural testbed would be hyperelasticity with convexity enforced by input-convex epinets.
  • The paper fixes the epistemic-index distribution to nonnegative support to preserve convexity, so prior choice is coupled to admissibility rather than being a free Bayesian prior; one could instead parameterize the dissipation epinet with a nonnegative output map, allowing signed epistemic indices and a wider family of priors.
  • The trajectory-level exchangeability assumption used for conformal calibration will be violated when a system is monitored online under drifting regimes, and an adaptive or online conformal variant would be needed to keep coverage guarantees in that setting.
  • Because the base network is frozen, S-PENNs uncertainty covers only the residual between the admissible class and the data, not the full model-class uncertainty; if the base N-GENN is trained on one parameter regime, intervals will remain narrow even where extrapolation fails, which is testable by training on one regime and checking coverage in another.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes S-PENNs, a framework for uncertainty quantification in structure-preserving GENERIC neural dynamics. It attaches lightweight epinets to each thermodynamic building block of a pretrained N-GENNs model, using a shared epistemic index to generate joint perturbations, and then reassembles the augmented blocks via the same structure-preserving reparameterizations as the base model. The authors claim every sampled vector field is thermodynamically admissible by construction, thereby preserving energy and nonnegative entropy production; split-conformal calibration provides finite-sample marginal coverage intervals. Numerical experiments on two ODE systems and one PDE system compare S-PENNs with deep ensembles and MC dropout, reporting competitive accuracy at substantially lower computational cost.

Significance. The paper addresses an important gap: UQ for hard-constrained structure-preserving models without breaking the constraints. The block-wise epinet design with a common epistemic index is elegant and general, and the input-independent branch for global tensors is a useful contribution. The numerical study is extensive, with proper scoring rules, calibration curves, and wall-clock comparisons across problems of increasing complexity. If the structural guarantee were fully established, S-PENNs would be a valuable low-cost alternative to deep ensembles in mechanics applications; the paper is clearly written and the ideas are reproducible in principle.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2.3.2, Eqs. (13) and (18)] The claim that each epistemic realization is thermodynamically admissible is not established for the dissipation potential. The epinet input in Eq. (13) includes the base hidden feature h^Ξ_ψ(x,x*), which is a function of x*. A PICNN guarantees convexity in x* only for fixed auxiliary inputs; when an auxiliary input itself depends on x*, the composition need not be convex. For example, with d_z=1 and z=1, take the hidden feature h=(x*)^2 and let the learnable epinet output σ=-h, which is realizable through Eq. (10) by setting NN_φ([\bar h,z])^T z to output -h. Then \tilde Ξ_ϑ(x,x*,z)=\tilde Ξ_ψ(x,x*)-(x*)^2, which need not be convex in x*. Consequently, the Bregman-type reparameterization in Eq. (18) does not guarantee Ξ_ϑ≥0 or nonnegative entropy production for each realization. The subsequent paragraph about nonnegative coefficients of the epistemic index does not resolve this, since the x*-dependence through the base features is left unconstrained. This undermines the central "by construction" claim stated in the abstract and in Section 2.3.2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.1] The text states that the harmonic-oscillator dataset consists of 100 trajectories, but the trajectory-level split is 60 training + 50 calibration + 40 testing = 150 trajectories; this arithmetic inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Appendix A] The conformal guarantee in Eq. (25) is pointwise in j, whereas the empirical coverage curves in Figures 2, 4, and 6 average over forecast entries; the text should clarify that the displayed EC is an aggregate diagnostic and is not itself covered by the finite-sample guarantee.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Reference [23]] The paper uses both "N-GENNs" and "N-GINNs" for the same model family; the terminology should be standardized throughout the text.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Eq. (22)] In the viscoplastic example, the notation in Eq. (22) suppresses the dependence of the predictor on boundary histories, which are part of the rollout input; including them in the notation would make the exchangeability argument for the PDE case more transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity; S-PENNs attach epinets to a frozen N-GENNs base and re-use the same structure-preserving reparameterizations, so first/second-law admissibility is by construction rather than by fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: GENERIC constraints (Section 2.1) -> N-GENNs base parameterization (Eqs. (3)-(7)) -> S-PENNs augmented blocks (Eqs. (12)-(14)) -> reparameterized augmented operator and dissipation potential (Eqs. (16)-(18)) -> admissible vector field (Eq. (19)). None of these steps is circular in the sense that a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or that a result is defined into existence. Lϑ and Ξϑ are assembled with the same projection and skew-symmetrization devices used by N-GENNs, so energy conservation and nonnegative entropy production hold for each epistemic draw without fitting; the nonnegativity of z is a modeling choice, not a fit. The split-conformal calibration of Section 2.4 is a post-hoc quantile construction on held-out trajectories; its finite-sample coverage guarantee is a rank argument, not an internal consistency loop. The only same-group dependency is the base architecture N-GENNs [23], a preprint from the same group; however, the relevant reparameterizations are restated in Section 2.1 and the paper's contribution is the epinet attachment, so this is prior work rather than a load-bearing self-citation loop. One proof gap should be flagged, though it is a correctness issue rather than a circularity: Section 2.3.2 asserts that PICNNs for the raw dissipation-potential epinet 'ensure the outputs are convex in x∗', but the epinet feature vector in Eq. (13) includes base hidden features h(x,x∗), which themselves depend on x∗, so convexity is not inherited automatically; this gap does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The limitation section's admission of noise-free measurements is likewise an external-validity limitation, not a circular step.

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

The central claim rests on the GENERIC thermodynamic framework and the N-GENNs parameterization from prior work, plus exchangeability for the conformal guarantee. No new physical entities are introduced; the input-independent epinet branch is an architectural component, not a physical entity.

free parameters (4)
  • prior scale w = 0.1 (main examples), 1.0 (inverse-problem appendix)
    Hand-chosen hyperparameter controlling initial epistemic spread; influences interval width but not the structural-conservation claim.
  • epistemic index dimension d_z = 5
    Chosen by hand; determines the number of prior networks and the dimension of the shared random index.
  • reference distribution pi(z) = half-normal; uniform on [0,5]; truncated exponential
    Modeling choice; nonnegative support is required for the convexity-preserving dissipation-potential epinet.
  • deep ensemble size and MC dropout rate = 50 members; dropout 0.2 (ODE), 0.1 (PDE)
    Baseline hyperparameters; the lower dropout rate for the PDE was chosen after higher rates failed to converge.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GENERIC structural conditions (skew-symmetry of L, degeneracy conditions, convexity of dissipation potential) imply energy conservation and nonnegative entropy production.
    Taken from the GENERIC literature [15-18,53,54]; the paper does not re-derive these conditions.
  • domain assumption The N-GENNs base parameterization [23] correctly enforces all GENERIC constraints on the deterministic backbone.
    S-PENNs inherits the base architecture wholesale; if N-GENNs were flawed, S-PENNs would inherit the flaw.
  • domain assumption Calibration and test trajectories are jointly exchangeable.
    Required for the split conformal guarantee; the paper satisfies it by drawing initial states independently from the same distribution.
  • domain assumption Training data are noise-free and fully observed.
    Stated as a limitation in Section 4; the method is not evaluated in errors-in-variables settings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure-preserving uncertainty quantification for GENERIC dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NETB2H36

@misc{pith2026260812624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure-preserving uncertainty quantification for GENERIC dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NETB2H36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12624}
}
read the original abstract

Structure-preserving machine learning embeds physical structure directly into model architectures, yet uncertainty quantification (UQ) for such hard-constrained models remains limited because standard UQ methods may violate the encoded admissibility conditions, require architectural modifications, or impose substantial computational costs. In this work, we propose Structure-Preserving Epistemic Neural Networks (S-PENNs), a general framework for UQ in scientific machine learning models with hard architectural constraints, and instantiate it for GENERIC (General Equation for Non-Equilibrium Reversible-Irreversible Coupling) dynamics. S-PENNs preserve the structural constraints of a pretrained model by attaching lightweight epinets to its constrained components, ensuring that every sampled realization remains physically admissible by construction. When applied to GENERIC dynamics, such a proposed framework yields thermodynamically consistent rollouts that preserve the first and second laws. Furthermore, we combine S-PENNs with split conformal prediction as a post-hoc calibration method to produce prediction intervals with finite-sample marginal coverage guarantees. We validate S-PENNs on three numerical examples: a harmonic oscillator coupled to a heat bath and an idealized chemical motor, both governed by ODEs, and a one-dimensional viscoplastic model governed by PDEs. Across all three examples, S-PENNs produce thermodynamically consistent stochastic realizations and well-calibrated prediction intervals while reducing the computational cost by about one to three orders of magnitude compared to deep ensembles. Although the present study focuses on GENERIC dynamics, S-PENNs can be extended more broadly to scientific machine learning models in computational mechanics with either hard or soft constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the S-PENNs construction for GENERIC dynamics. The state variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Predictive trajectories and calibration diagnostics for the harmonic oscillator example. The first three columns compare deep ensembles, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predictive accuracy and structure-preservation diagnostics for the harmonic oscillator example. The top panel shows the componentwise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predictive trajectories and calibration diagnostics for the idealized chemical motor. Columns correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Predictive accuracy and structure-preservation diagnostics for the idealized chemical motor. The top panel shows the componentwise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: S-PENNs (half-normal) prediction, uncertainty, and calibration fields for the 1D viscoplastic model on a representative testing case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Componentwise testing-case relative ℓ 2 error (RL2E) over the space–time grid for the 1D viscoplastic testing dataset. The grouped boxplots compare deep ensembles, MC dropout, and the half-normal, uniform, and exponential S-PENNs variants for u, p, ε vp, and θ. Each bo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The four columns correspond to u, p, ε vp, and θ, and the rows display, from top to bottom, the predictive mean, simulated reference field, pointwise absolute error, and uncalibrated uncertainty. The uncertainty is the pointwise empirical standard deviation across the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neural ordinary differential equa- tions.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    Ricky TQ Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David K Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equa- tions.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational physics, 378:686–707, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Physics- informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    George Em Karniadakis, Ioannis G Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, and Liu Yang. Physics- informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Learning nonlinear oper- ators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators.Nature machine intelligence, 3(3):218–229, 2021

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

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895, 2020

    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

  6. [6]

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

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

    2023

  7. [7]

    Structure-preserving deep learning.European journal of applied mathematics, 32(5):888– 936, 2021

    Elena Celledoni, Matthias J Ehrhardt, Christian Etmann, Robert I McLachlan, Brynjulf Owren, C-B Schonlieb, and Ferdia Sherry. Structure-preserving deep learning.European journal of applied mathematics, 32(5):888– 936, 2021. 29

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    SympNets: Intrinsic structure- preserving symplectic networks for identifying Hamiltonian systems.Neural Networks, 132:166–179, 2020

    Pengzhan Jin, Zhen Zhang, Aiqing Zhu, Yifa Tang, and George Em Karniadakis. SympNets: Intrinsic structure- preserving symplectic networks for identifying Hamiltonian systems.Neural Networks, 132:166–179, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    OnsagerNet: Learning stable and interpretable dynamics using a generalized Onsager principle.Physical Review Fluids, 6(11):114402, 2021

    Haijun Yu, Xinyuan Tian, Weinan E, and Qianxiao Li. OnsagerNet: Learning stable and interpretable dynamics using a generalized Onsager principle.Physical Review Fluids, 6(11):114402, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Zhen Zhang, Yeonjong Shin, and George Em Karniadakis. GFINNs: GENERIC formalism informed neural networks for deterministic and stochastic dynamical systems.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 380(2229), 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hamiltonian Neural Networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    Samuel Greydanus, Misko Dzamba, and Jason Yosinski. Hamiltonian Neural Networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Lagrangian Neural Networks

    Miles Cranmer, Sam Greydanus, Stephan Hoyer, Peter Battaglia, David Spergel, and Shirley Ho. Lagrangian Neural Networks. InICLR 2020 Workshop on Integration of Deep Neural Models and Differential Equations, 2019

    2020

  5. [13]

    Symplectic ODE-Net: Learning Hamiltonian dynamics with control

    Yaofeng Desmond Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty. Symplectic ODE-Net: Learning Hamiltonian dynamics with control. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Learning Poisson systems and trajectories of autonomous systems via Poisson neural networks.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(11):8271–8283, 2022

    Pengzhan Jin, Zhen Zhang, Ioannis G Kevrekidis, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning Poisson systems and trajectories of autonomous systems via Poisson neural networks.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(11):8271–8283, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids

    Miroslav Grmela and Hans Christian Öttinger. Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. I. development of a general formalism.Physical Review E, 56(6):6620, 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids

    Hans Christian Öttinger and Miroslav Grmela. Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. II. illustrations of a general formalism.Physical Review E, 56(6):6633, 1997

    1997

  9. [17]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2005

    Hans Christian Öttinger.Beyond Equilibrium Thermodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2018

    Michal Pavelka, Václav Klika, and Miroslav Grmela.Multiscale Thermo-Dynamics: Introduction to GENERIC. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    A paradigm for joined Hamiltonian and dissipative systems.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenom- ena, 18(1-3):410–419, 1986

    Philip J Morrison. A paradigm for joined Hamiltonian and dissipative systems.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenom- ena, 18(1-3):410–419, 1986

    1986

  12. [20]

    Structure-preserving neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 426:109950, 2021

    Quercus Hernández, Alberto Badías, David González, Francisco Chinesta, and Elías Cueto. Structure-preserving neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 426:109950, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Machine learning structure preserving brackets for forecasting irreversible processes.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5696–5707, 2021

    Kookjin Lee, Nathaniel Trask, and Panos Stinis. Machine learning structure preserving brackets for forecasting irreversible processes.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5696–5707, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Efficiently parameterized neural metriplectic systems

    Anthony Gruber, Kookjin Lee, Haksoo Lim, Noseong Park, and Nathaniel Trask. Efficiently parameterized neural metriplectic systems. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 24835–24859, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Nonlinear GENERIC Informed Neural Networks (N-GINNs): learning GENERIC dynamics with non-quadratic dissipation potentials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.09058, 2026

    V ojtˇech V otruba, Zequn He, Weilun Qiu, Celia Reina, and Michal Pavelka. Nonlinear GENERIC Informed Neural Networks (N-GINNs): learning GENERIC dynamics with non-quadratic dissipation potentials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.09058, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Shenglin Huang, Zequn He, and Celia Reina. Variational Onsager Neural Networks (VONNs): A thermodynamics-based variational learning strategy for non-equilibrium PDEs.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 163:104856, 2022. 30

    2022

  17. [25]

    Uncertainty quantifi- cation in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons.Journal of Computational Physics, 477:111902, 2023

    Apostolos F Psaros, Xuhui Meng, Zongren Zou, Ling Guo, and George Em Karniadakis. Uncertainty quantifi- cation in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons.Journal of Computational Physics, 477:111902, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    Radford M Neal.Bayesian learning for neural networks, volume 118. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Bayesian Neural Networks: An introduction and survey

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

    2018

  20. [28]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    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

  21. [29]

    Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning

    Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. Ininternational conference on machine learning, pages 1050–1059. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    B-PINNs: Bayesian physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE problems with noisy data.Journal of Computational Physics, 425:109913, 2021

    Liu Yang, Xuhui Meng, and George Em Karniadakis. B-PINNs: Bayesian physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE problems with noisy data.Journal of Computational Physics, 425:109913, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Quantifying total uncertainty in physics- informed neural networks for solving forward and inverse stochastic problems.Journal of Computational Physics, 397:108850, 2019

    Dongkun Zhang, Lu Lu, Ling Guo, and George Em Karniadakis. Quantifying total uncertainty in physics- informed neural networks for solving forward and inverse stochastic problems.Journal of Computational Physics, 397:108850, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Adversarial uncertainty quantification in physics-informed neural networks

    Yibo Yang and Paris Perdikaris. Adversarial uncertainty quantification in physics-informed neural networks. Journal of Computational Physics, 394:136–152, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Wasserstein generative adversarial uncertainty quantification in physics- informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 463:111270, 2022

    Yihang Gao and Michael K Ng. Wasserstein generative adversarial uncertainty quantification in physics- informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 463:111270, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    PI-V AE: Physics-Informed Variational Auto-encoder for stochastic differ- ential equations.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 403:115664, 2023

    Weiheng Zhong and Hadi Meidani. PI-V AE: Physics-Informed Variational Auto-encoder for stochastic differ- ential equations.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 403:115664, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Physics-informed variational inference for uncertainty quantification of stochastic differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 487:112183, 2023

    Hyomin Shin and Minseok Choi. Physics-informed variational inference for uncertainty quantification of stochastic differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 487:112183, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Physics-informed polynomial chaos expansions

    Lukáš Novák, Himanshu Sharma, and Michael D Shields. Physics-informed polynomial chaos expansions. Journal of Computational Physics, 506:112926, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    A conformal prediction framework for uncertainty quantification in physics-informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 561:114979, 2026

    Yifan Yu, Cheuk Hin Ho, and Yangshuai Wang. A conformal prediction framework for uncertainty quantification in physics-informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 561:114979, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Symplectic Spectrum Gaussian Processes: Learning Hamiltonians from noisy and sparse data.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:20795–20808, 2022

    Yusuke Tanaka, Tomoharu Iwata, et al. Symplectic Spectrum Gaussian Processes: Learning Hamiltonians from noisy and sparse data.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:20795–20808, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Learning energy conserving dynamics efficiently with Hamiltonian Gaus- sian processes.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    Magnus Ross and Markus Heinonen. Learning energy conserving dynamics efficiently with Hamiltonian Gaus- sian processes.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Nicholas Galioto, Harsh Sharma, Boris Kramer, and Alex Arkady Gorodetsky. Bayesian identification of non- separable Hamiltonians with multiplicative noise using deep learning and reduced-order modeling.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 430:117194, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Learning thermodynamically constrained equations of state with uncertainty.APL Machine Learning, 2(1), 2024

    Himanshu Sharma, Jim A Gaffney, Dimitrios Tsapetis, and Michael D Shields. Learning thermodynamically constrained equations of state with uncertainty.APL Machine Learning, 2(1), 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Bayesian-EUCLID: Discovering hyperelastic material laws with uncertainties.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 398:115225, 2022

    Akshay Joshi, Prakash Thakolkaran, Yiwen Zheng, Maxime Escande, Moritz Flaschel, Laura De Lorenzis, and Siddhant Kumar. Bayesian-EUCLID: Discovering hyperelastic material laws with uncertainties.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 398:115225, 2022. 31

    2022

  35. [43]

    Discovering uncertainty: Bayesian constitutive artificial neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 433:117517, 2025

    Kevin Linka, Gerhard A Holzapfel, and Ellen Kuhl. Discovering uncertainty: Bayesian constitutive artificial neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 433:117517, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Conformal quantile regression for neural probabilistic constitutive modeling.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 457:118981, 2026

    Bahador Bahmani. Conformal quantile regression for neural probabilistic constitutive modeling.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 457:118981, 2026

    2026

  37. [45]

    Hands- on Bayesian neural networks—a tutorial for deep learning users.IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 17(2):29–48, 2022

    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

  38. [46]

    A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks.Artificial intelligence review, 56(Suppl 1):1513–1589, 2023

    Jakob Gawlikowski, Cedrique Rovile Njieutcheu Tassi, Mohsin Ali, Jongseok Lee, Matthias Humt, Jianxiang Feng, Anna Kruspe, Rudolph Triebel, Peter Jung, Ribana Roscher, et al. A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks.Artificial intelligence review, 56(Suppl 1):1513–1589, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Epistemic neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:2795–2823, 2023

    Ian Osband, Zheng Wen, Seyed Mohammad Asghari, Vikranth Dwaracherla, Morteza Ibrahimi, Xiuyuan Lu, and Benjamin Van Roy. Epistemic neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:2795–2823, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Composite Bayesian optimization in function spaces using NEON—Neural Epistemic Operator Networks.Scientific Reports, 14(1):29199, 2024

    Leonardo Ferreira Guilhoto and Paris Perdikaris. Composite Bayesian optimization in function spaces using NEON—Neural Epistemic Operator Networks.Scientific Reports, 14(1):29199, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    E-PINNs: Epistemic Physics- Informed Neural Networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19333, 2025

    Bruno Jacob, Ashish S Nair, Amanda A Howard, Jan Drgona, and Panos Stinis. E-PINNs: Epistemic Physics- Informed Neural Networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19333, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    EVODMs: variational learning of PDEs for stochastic systems via diffusion models with quantified epistemic uncertainty.Journal of Computational Physics, page 114722, 2026

    Zequn He and Celia Reina. EVODMs: variational learning of PDEs for stochastic systems via diffusion models with quantified epistemic uncertainty.Journal of Computational Physics, page 114722, 2026

    2026

  43. [51]

    SPIEDiff: robust learning of long-time macroscopic dynamics from short-time particle simulations with quantified epistemic uncertainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13501, 2025

    Zequn He and Celia Reina. SPIEDiff: robust learning of long-time macroscopic dynamics from short-time particle simulations with quantified epistemic uncertainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13501, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 16(4):494–591, 2023

    Anastasios N Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates. Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 16(4):494–591, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    GENERIC guide to the multiscale dynamics and thermodynamics.Journal of Physics Com- munications, 2(3):032001, 2018

    Miroslav Grmela. GENERIC guide to the multiscale dynamics and thermodynamics.Journal of Physics Com- munications, 2(3):032001, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Fluctuation symmetry leads to GENERIC equations with non-quadratic dissipation.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 130(1):139– 170, 2020

    Richard C Kraaij, Alexandre Lazarescu, Christian Maes, and Mark Peletier. Fluctuation symmetry leads to GENERIC equations with non-quadratic dissipation.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 130(1):139– 170, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Input convex neural networks

    Brandon Amos, Lei Xu, and J Zico Kolter. Input convex neural networks. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 146–155. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    NeuralUQ: A comprehensive library for uncertainty quantification in neural differential equations and operators.SIAM Review, 66(1):161–190, 2024

    Zongren Zou, Xuhui Meng, Apostolos F Psaros, and George E Karniadakis. NeuralUQ: A comprehensive library for uncertainty quantification in neural differential equations and operators.SIAM Review, 66(1):161–190, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Evaluating and calibrating uncertainty prediction in regression tasks.Sensors, 22(15):5540, 2022

    Dan Levi, Liran Gispan, Niv Giladi, and Ethan Fetaya. Evaluating and calibrating uncertainty prediction in regression tasks.Sensors, 22(15):5540, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Accurate uncertainties for deep learning using cali- brated regression

    V olodymyr Kuleshov, Nathan Fenner, and Stefano Ermon. Accurate uncertainties for deep learning using cali- brated regression. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2796–2804. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    CRUDE: calibrating regression uncertainty distributions empirically.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12496, 2020

    Eric Zelikman, Christopher Healy, Sharon Zhou, and Anand Avati. CRUDE: calibrating regression uncertainty distributions empirically.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12496, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Inductive confidence machines for regression

    Harris Papadopoulos, Kostas Proedrou, V olodya V ovk, and Alex Gammerman. Inductive confidence machines for regression. InEuropean conference on machine learning, pages 345–356. Springer, 2002. 32

    2002

  53. [61]

    Distribution-free predictive inference for regression.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523):1094–1111, 2018

    Jing Lei, Max G’Sell, Alessandro Rinaldo, Ryan J Tibshirani, and Larry Wasserman. Distribution-free predictive inference for regression.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523):1094–1111, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Conformal time-series forecasting.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 34:6216–6228, 2021

    Kamile Stankeviciute, Ahmed M Alaa, and Mihaela Van der Schaar. Conformal time-series forecasting.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 34:6216–6228, 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    Copula Conformal prediction for multi-step time series prediction

    Sophia Huiwen Sun and Rose Yu. Copula Conformal prediction for multi-step time series prediction. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Uncertainty quantification of surrogate models using conformal predic- tion.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 7(1):015025, 2026

    Vignesh Gopakumar, Ander Gray, Joel Oskarsson, Lorenzo Zanisi, Daniel Giles, Matt J Kusner, Stanislas Pamela, and Marc Peter Deisenroth. Uncertainty quantification of surrogate models using conformal predic- tion.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 7(1):015025, 2026

    2026

  57. [65]

    A tutorial on conformal prediction.Journal of machine learning research, 9(3), 2008

    Glenn Shafer and Vladimir V ovk. A tutorial on conformal prediction.Journal of machine learning research, 9(3), 2008

    2008

  58. [66]

    Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation.Journal of the American statistical Association, 102(477):359–378, 2007

    Tilmann Gneiting and Adrian E Raftery. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation.Journal of the American statistical Association, 102(477):359–378, 2007

    2007

  59. [67]

    Scoring rules for continuous probability distributions.Management science, 22(10):1087–1096, 1976

    James E Matheson and Robert L Winkler. Scoring rules for continuous probability distributions.Management science, 22(10):1087–1096, 1976

    1976

  60. [68]

    Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems

    Hans Hersbach. Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems. Weather and Forecasting, 15(5):559–570, 2000

    2000

  61. [69]

    Assessing probabilistic forecasts of multivariate quantities, with an application to ensemble predictions of surface winds

    Tilmann Gneiting, Larissa I Stanberry, Eric P Grimit, Leonhard Held, and Nicholas A Johnson. Assessing probabilistic forecasts of multivariate quantities, with an application to ensemble predictions of surface winds. Test, 17(2):211–235, 2008

    2008

  62. [70]

    Courier Corporation, 2008

    Jacob Lubliner.Plasticity theory. Courier Corporation, 2008

    2008

  63. [71]

    Springer, 1998

    Juan C Simo and Thomas JR Hughes.Computational inelasticity. Springer, 1998

    1998

  64. [72]

    Formulation of thermoelastic dissipative material behavior using GENERIC.Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 23(3):233–256, 2011

    Alexander Mielke. Formulation of thermoelastic dissipative material behavior using GENERIC.Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 23(3):233–256, 2011

    2011

  65. [73]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    Wayne A Fuller.Measurement error models. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  66. [74]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006

    Raymond J Carroll, David Ruppert, Leonard A Stefanski, and Ciprian M Crainiceanu.Measurement error in nonlinear models: a modern perspective. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006

    2006

  67. [75]

    Errors-in-variables methods in system identification.Automatica, 43(6):939–958, 2007

    Torsten Söderström. Errors-in-variables methods in system identification.Automatica, 43(6):939–958, 2007

    2007

  68. [76]

    Zongren Zou, Xuhui Meng, and George Em Karniadakis. Uncertainty quantification for noisy inputs–outputs in physics-informed neural networks and neural operators.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi- neering, 433:117479, 2025

    2025

  69. [77]

    Approximate thompson sampling via epistemic neural networks

    Ian Osband, Zheng Wen, Seyed Mohammad Asghari, Vikranth Dwaracherla, Morteza Ibrahimi, Xiuyuan Lu, and Benjamin Van Roy. Approximate thompson sampling via epistemic neural networks. InUncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1586–1595. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  70. [78]

    VENI, VINDy, VICI: a generative reduced-order modeling framework with uncertainty quantification.Neural Networks, page 108543, 2026

    Paolo Conti, Jonas Kneifl, Andrea Manzoni, Attilio Frangi, Jörg Fehr, Steven L Brunton, and J Nathan Kutz. VENI, VINDy, VICI: a generative reduced-order modeling framework with uncertainty quantification.Neural Networks, page 108543, 2026

    2026

  71. [79]

    Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness

    Tilmann Gneiting, Fadoua Balabdaoui, and Adrian E Raftery. Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 69(2):243–268, 2007. 33

    2007

  72. [80]

    Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series

    Chen Xu and Yao Xie. Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11559–11569. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  73. [81]

    Multi-element generalized polynomial chaos for arbitrary proba- bility measures.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 28(3):901–928, 2006

    Xiaoliang Wan and George Em Karniadakis. Multi-element generalized polynomial chaos for arbitrary proba- bility measures.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 28(3):901–928, 2006

    2006

  74. [82]

    On decompositions of the KdV 2-soliton.Journal of Nonlinear Science, 16(2):179–200, 2006

    Nicholas Benes, Alex Kasman, and Kevin Young. On decompositions of the KdV 2-soliton.Journal of Nonlinear Science, 16(2):179–200, 2006. 34

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.