Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Diff-SPORT: Diffusion-based Sensor Placement Optimization and Reconstruction of Turbulent flows in urban environments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Diff-SPORT reconstructs turbulent city winds from sparse, deployable sensors using a single diffusion prior.

desk verdict Competent incremental extension of the authors' own diffusion-based reconstruction work, but the 'foundation model for urban flows' framing is not supported by the single-geometry, 2D validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00214 v1 pith:MXPNXLVN submitted 2025-05-30 physics.flu-dyn cs.AI

Abhijeet Vishwasrao , Sai Bharath Chandra Gutha , Andres Cremades , Klas Wijk , Aakash Patil , Catherine Gorle , Beverley J McKeon , Hossein Azizpour
show 1 more author
Ricardo Vinuesa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyncs.AI PACS 47.27.-i
keywords diffusionmodelssparsereconstructionoptimalsensorplacementturbulentflowurbanShapleyvaluesmaximumaposterioriestimationzero-shotinference
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

Diff-SPORT aims to show that one diffusion model trained on high-fidelity simulation data can handle both halves of the urban-flow monitoring problem: reconstructing the full instantaneous velocity-fluctuation field from a sparse, practically feasible sensor mask, and deciding where those sensors should be placed. The paper argues that its MAP-GA reconstruction, which optimizes the posterior directly through the diffusion prior's gradients, is roughly three times more accurate and stable than the score-based ΠGDM baseline, and that a Shapley-value attribution with a custom coalition kernel selects sensor subregions that outperform random placement and match QR-pivoting. If correct, a single pretrained model would serve multiple monitoring tasks without retraining, at inference speeds compatible with near-real-time use. The demonstration uses a 2D mid-span slice of flow around a wall-mounted square cylinder at Reynolds number 2000, with the time-mean field subtracted beforehand.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pretrained DDPM acting as a probabilistic surrogate for the flow-field distribution, with two wrappers around it. MAP-GA treats the reverse diffusion chain as a deterministic map $f_\theta$ from noise $\Psi_T$ to a clean field $\Psi_0$ and maximizes $\log p(f_\theta(\Psi_T)|S)$ by gradient ascent, approximating the Jacobian with the Tweedie-type denoiser $E(\Psi_0|\Psi_\tau)$ at each of 20 diffusion steps with 50 ascent iterations per step. For sensor placement, kernelSHAP evaluates a value function $v(C)=-\mathrm{MSE}(\Psi_{\mathrm{DNS}},\Psi_0^{(C)})$ over sensor coalitions $C$, using a modified weighting kernel $\pi_{\mathrm{mod}}$ that zeros out coalitions outside an empirically chosen 3.6\% to 9\% pixel range to avoid misleading attributions from very sparse or very dense coalitions.

What would settle it

Run the same trained Diff-SPORT prior on a held-out second geometry, a different Reynolds number, or the full 3D volume instead of the 2D mid-span slice; if the mean reconstruction error rises sharply relative to the in-distribution baseline, the foundation-model claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a variance-preserving DDPM trained on 26,000 mean-subtracted snapshots of streamwise and vertical velocity fluctuations acts as a reusable probabilistic prior for urban-scale turbulent flow. Unconditionally, it generates samples that match DNS in second-order statistics and full probability distributions; conditionally, MAP-GA reconstructs instantaneous fields from as little as 15% of the domain, using only near-ground and obstacle-adjacent regions and no wake sensors, with errors concentrated in the wake yet low overall. MAP-GA replaces the learned score with a deterministic denoiser map and performs gradient ascent on the posterior, yielding a sharper error distribution and roughly three times better accuracy and precision than ΠGDM. The same prior is then used inside kernelSHAP with a custom coalition kernel, where the value function is negative reconstruction MSE for each sensor coalition; thresholding the resulting importance map gives spatially coherent sensor subregions that beat random placement and are competitive with QR-pivoting, especially at tight sensor budgets.

Load-bearing premise

The diffusion prior is trained only on a 2D mid-span slice of a single wall-mounted square-cylinder flow at Reynolds number 2000, and the paper treats it as a general urban-flow foundation model, so if this prior does not transfer to other geometries, Reynolds numbers, or 3D fields, the practical claims degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a 15% coverage baseline mask and no wake sensors, MAP-GA reconstructs instantaneous velocity fields with errors mostly confined to the wake and low overall magnitude.
  • SHAP-generated sensor placements are spatially coherent, support flexible sensor budgets, and outperform random placement while matching QR-pivoting under tight budgets.
  • A single trained diffusion model handles unconditional generation, sparse reconstruction, and sensor attribution without retraining, making the pipeline modular and zero-shot.
  • At roughly 12 seconds per snapshot on one A100 GPU, with batched and parallel inference, the approach is compatible with near-real-time urban monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the mean field is subtracted before training, real deployments must supply the time-averaged flow separately; Diff-SPORT's current results assume that mean is known, which the paper does not quantify.
  • Editorial inference: the SHAP value function uses ground-truth DNS fields to compute MSE, but in live monitoring no ground truth exists; a surrogate error metric would be needed for practical attribution, and the paper does not test ranking stability under noisy or approximate errors.
  • Editorial inference: the framework is demonstrated on one 2D slice; applying the same prior to a 3D volume or to temporal sequences would test whether the learned distribution captures spanwise and time correlations, which the current evaluation does not cover.
  • Editorial inference: a natural extension is to reuse the same prior with different forward operators (point sensors, partial fields, or noisy measurements), since zero-shot MAP-GA is operator-agnostic; the paper only tests noiseless masked-region inpainting.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Diff-SPORT, a three-stage framework: a DDPM trained on DNS data of flow around a wall-mounted square cylinder at Re_h=2000, a MAP gradient-ascent (MAP-GA) scheme for sparse reconstruction from masked velocity fluctuations, and a SHAP-based sensor-placement method with a modified coalition weighting kernel. The authors evaluate unconditional generation statistics, conditional reconstruction against ΠGDM and unconditional DDPM, and sensor placement against QR-pivoting and random placement. They report that MAP-GA outperforms ΠGDM by roughly a factor of three and that SHAP-based placement outperforms random placement and matches or slightly exceeds QR-pivoting, especially at low sensor counts. The paper frames the pre-trained diffusion prior as a zero-shot, modular 'foundation model' for urban flow monitoring.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework is a useful modular contribution: a single pre-trained diffusion prior, used without retraining, can serve both sparse reconstruction for arbitrary masks and interpretable sensor placement. The unconditional generation results, including second-order statistics and PDFs, provide genuinely supporting evidence for the quality of the prior. The comparison with external baselines (ΠGDM, QR-pivoting, random placement) and the use of multiple MAP-GA runs are strengths. The main significance is therefore conditional: the methodology is promising and the in-distribution evidence is substantial, but the paper's broad 'urban environment' and 'foundation model' claims are not supported by the presently tested single-geometry, single-Reynolds-number, two-dimensional setting.

major comments (4)
  1. [Discussion and conclusions; Methods (Numerical simulation and flow description)] The generalization claim is load-bearing and unsupported. The diffusion prior is trained on one DNS of flow around a wall-mounted square cylinder at Re_h=2000, on a single 2D mid-span slice, and evaluated on the last 5% of the same simulation. The Discussion itself states that future work should 'improve generalization to out-of-distribution flows' and 'training foundation models', which directly contradicts the abstract's and Introduction's characterization of Diff-SPORT as a 'zero-shot alternative' and the diffusion model as a 'foundation model'. At minimum, the claims should be restricted to in-distribution reconstruction for the canonical case, or an out-of-distribution test (different geometry, Reynolds number, or three-dimensional configuration) should be added.
  2. [Fig. 4(c)-(d), Optimal sensor placement] The evaluation mode in Figure 4(c) is not achievable in deployment. Selecting, for each test field, the MAP-GA run with the lowest reconstruction error requires access to the ground-truth field; the paper's statement that this 'best selection strategy can be utilized in practical scenarios, leveraging the temporal error evolution curves' does not explain how the error curve would be known without ground truth. This mode removes the stochasticity of MAP-GA from the comparison and can bias the ranking of placement methods. The deployment-relevant comparison is panel (d), which includes run-to-run variability; the claims that SHAP 'matches or exceeds' QR-pivoting should be based on panel (d) or on a selection rule that does not use ground-truth error.
  3. [Methods (Shapley values for optimal sensor placement), Eq. (15)] The SHAP kernel range [k_min, k_max] is fitted to the data rather than prescribed or validated on independent data. The text states that the range is 'determined empirically from random baseline experiments' and that 'optimal performance typically observed in the 3.6-9% pixels range, as seen in figure 4(c)-(d)'. Since the same figures are used to report the final SHAP versus random comparison, the sensor-placement evaluation is not fully independent of the choice of this hyperparameter. The authors should either fix the kernel range from a validation split, report sensitivity of the conclusions to this range, or provide a principled selection criterion.
  4. [Results (Overview), Eq. (1), Eq. (6)] The measurement model and the practical deployment scenario are mismatched. The paper subtracts the time-averaged mean field and reconstructs only the fluctuation tensor Ψ(x,y,t), with the mean field 'considered to be known from the flow statistics'. In a real urban deployment, sensors measure the total velocity, and the local mean wind is generally not known from a prior DNS of the same flow. This assumption is central to the practical urban-monitoring claims. The paper should state clearly that the method reconstructs fluctuations conditioned on a known mean, or it should demonstrate how the mean is obtained in deployment without access to the simulation statistics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods (Equation (1))] The phrase 'overbars denote ensemble averages in time' is internally inconsistent; an ensemble average is not a time average. The authors likely mean a time average under the assumption of statistical stationarity, and this should be reworded.
  2. [Results (Sparse reconstruction, Figure 3)] The claim that 'MAP-GA outperforms ΠGDM by nearly a factor of three in terms of accuracy and precision' is stated without numerical support. Reporting the mean and standard deviation of the error metric in a table would make the factor-of-three claim verifiable.
  3. [Methods (Equation (3b))] There is a duplicated word in the sentence introducing α_t ('where where α_t = ...'). This should be corrected.
  4. [Figure 4 and Methods (Random baseline)] The random baseline uses seven masks per sensor count, but the error envelopes in Figure 4 do not appear to include confidence intervals or statistical significance tests. Adding error bars or a paired comparison would strengthen the claim that SHAP 'consistently outperforms' random placement.
  5. [General] The manuscript does not include a data or code availability statement. For a methods paper centered on a computational pipeline, providing access to the trained models or code would substantially aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation-equivalence circularity; MAP-GA is re-derived and re-benchmarked in this paper, while SHAP-based placement is an explicitly defined optimization objective rather than a hidden reuse of the evaluation metric.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the paper's equations. The reconstruction method, MAP-GA, is cited to the authors' prior WACV work [35], but the present paper restates the MAP estimation equations (10a-d), gives the implementation (20 diffusion steps, 50 gradient ascent iterations), and re-evaluates the method against the external PiGDM baseline on the current DNS dataset (Fig. 3). The self-citation therefore provides the algorithm's provenance, not the empirical claim; the 'factor of three' improvement is an in-paper measurement, not an imported conclusion. Similarly, the sensor-placement loop is not circular: Eq. (12) defines the SHAP value function as v(C) = -MSE(Psi, Psi_0^(C)) with Psi_0^(C) the MAP-GA reconstruction for coalition C. This is an explicitly chosen optimization objective ('We define a coalition ... The reconstruction model, instantiated via MAP-GA, generates a flow field'), so evaluating the resulting sensor rankings by reconstruction MSE is a self-consistent design, not a hidden identity. The nontrivial claims — SHAP beats random and roughly matches QR-pivoting — are tested against independent baselines (random masks and QR-pivoting on POD modes), and the test set is a temporally held-out 5% of the same simulation. The main weakness is not circularity but external validity: the diffusion prior is trained on a single wall-mounted-square-cylinder DNS at Re_h=2000 and evaluated on a 2D mid-span slice, while the paper labels it a 'foundation model' and claims zero-shot generalization; the Discussion itself lists 'improve generalization to out-of-distribution flows' and 'training foundation models' as future work. That is a generalizability gap, not a derivation-equivalence or fitted-input circularity.

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

The framework's central claims rest on a small number of hand-chosen parameters (mask thresholds, segment counts, SHAP kernel bounds) and on domain assumptions about stationarity and IID snapshots. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SHAP kernel range [kmin, kmax] = 3.6-9% of pixels
    Selected empirically from random placement sensitivity analysis; outside this range, coalition weights are set to zero, shaping the attribution results (eq. 15).
  • d_wall = 0.3h
    Hand-chosen distance threshold defining the feasible sensor mask near ground and obstacle surfaces.
  • N_seg = 900 subregions
    Number of atomic sensor subregions, chosen for modularity and computational feasibility.
  • MAP-GA inference steps = 20 diffusion steps, 50 gradient ascent iterations
    Hyperparameters inherited from the cited MAP-GA paper [35]; affect reconstruction quality and cost.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Snapshots of the velocity field are independently and identically distributed samples of the underlying turbulent flow distribution.
    Stated in Methods: "We treat each snapshot as an independent and identically distributed (IID) sample"; used to justify training and evaluation.
  • domain assumption The time-averaged mean flow is known and subtracted; the diffusion model only needs to represent the fluctuation field.
    Stated in Results: "the mean field is considered to be known from the flow statistics"; simplifies the generative task.
  • domain assumption The flow is statistically stationary, so a time-ordered 95/5 train/test split and SHAP values computed on training snapshots transfer to test data.
    Implied by treating snapshots as IID and by applying sensor rankings from training data to the test set.
  • ad hoc to paper Using the denoiser E(Psi_0|Psi_tau) as the map f_theta for the reverse diffusion chain yields a valid gradient for MAP estimation.
    Inherited from MAP-GA [35]; the paper states computing the full Jacobian is infeasible and this approximation is used at each diffusion step (eqs. 9-10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diff-SPORT: Diffusion-based Sensor Placement Optimization and Reconstruction of Turbulent flows in urban environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXPNXLVN

@misc{pith2026250600214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diff-SPORT: Diffusion-based Sensor Placement Optimization and Reconstruction of Turbulent flows in urban environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXPNXLVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00214}
}
read the original abstract

Rapid urbanization demands accurate and efficient monitoring of turbulent wind patterns to support air quality, climate resilience and infrastructure design. Traditional sparse reconstruction and sensor placement strategies face major accuracy degradations under practical constraints. Here, we introduce Diff-SPORT, a diffusion-based framework for high-fidelity flow reconstruction and optimal sensor placement in urban environments. Diff-SPORT combines a generative diffusion model with a maximum a posteriori (MAP) inference scheme and a Shapley-value attribution framework to propose a scalable and interpretable solution. Compared to traditional numerical methods, Diff-SPORT achieves significant speedups while maintaining both statistical and instantaneous flow fidelity. Our approach offers a modular, zero-shot alternative to retraining-intensive strategies, supporting fast and reliable urban flow monitoring under extreme sparsity. Diff-SPORT paves the way for integrating generative modeling and explainability in sustainable urban intelligence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: compares SHAP-based sensor placement with QR-pivoting and a random baseline, focusing on both spatial attribution and reconstruction accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A machine-learned probability distribution in the phase space of turbulent channel flow for synthetic turbulence and flow reconstruction

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A flow-matching generative model trained on minimal conditional flow units approximates the invariant phase-space distribution of turbulent channel flow at Re_tau=180, enabling synthetic turbulence generation and flow...

  2. GenDA: Generative Data Assimilation on Complex Urban Areas via Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance

    cs.LG 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A sensor-conditioned graph diffusion model reconstructs urban wind fields from <1% of mesh nodes, beating supervised GNN and SVD baselines on held-out altitude slices of one RANS dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Zhang and Z

    Y. Zhang and Z. Gu, Air quality by urban design, Nature Geoscience6, 506 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Manoli, S

    G. Manoli, S. Fatichi, M. Schl¨ apfer, K. Yu, T. W. Crowther, N. Meili, P. Burlando, G. G. Katul, and E. Bou-Zeid, Magnitude of urban heat islands largely explained by climate and population, Nature573, 55 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Sen and L

    S. Sen and L. Khazanovich, Limited application of reflective surfaces can mitigate urban heat pollution, Nature Commu- nications12, 3491 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    S. K. Balaian, B. F. Sanders, and M. J. A. Qomi, How urban form impacts flooding, Nature Communications15, 6911 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    World Health Organization, 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution,https://www.who.int/news/ item/25-03-2014-7-million-premature-deaths-annually-linked-to-air-pollution(2014), accessed: 2025-05-15

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Torres, S

    P. Torres, S. Le Clainche, and R. Vinuesa, On the experimental, numerical and data-driven methods to study urban flows, Energies14, 10.3390/en14051310 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3390/en14051310 2021

  7. [7]

    H. Li, Z. Yan, X. Dai, Z. Zhang, X. Li, S. Yao, and X. Wang, Numerical simulation of spatial wind fields in xumishan grottoes over complex terrain, npj Heritage Science13, 69 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Y. Gu, L. Wang, W. Chen, C. Zhang, and X. He, Application of the meshless generalized finite difference method to inverse heat source problems, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer108, 721 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Perret, K

    L. Perret, K. Blackman, and E. Savory, Combining wind-tunnel and field measurements of street-canyon flow via stochastic estimation, Boundary-Layer Meteorology161, 491 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Dubois, T

    P. Dubois, T. Gomez, L. Planckaert, and L. Perret, Machine learning for fluid flow reconstruction from limited measure- ments, Journal of Computational Physics448, 110733 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Taira, S

    K. Taira, S. L. Brunton, S. T. Dawson, C. W. Rowley, T. Colonius, B. J. McKeon, O. T. Schmidt, S. Gordeyev, V. Theofilis, and L. S. Ukeiley, Modal analysis of fluid flows: An overview, Aiaa Journal55, 4013 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    L. R. Pastur, F. Lusseyran, T. Faure, B. Podvin, and Y. Fraigneau, POD-based technique for 3d flow reconstruction using 2d data set, in13th International Symposium on Flow Visualization(2008) p. ID 223

    2008

  5. [13]

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, Generative Adversarial Networks, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    M. A. Kramer, Nonlinear principal component analysis using autoassociative neural networks, Aiche Journal37, 233 (1991)

    1991

  7. [15]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    T. Li, M. Buzzicotti, L. Biferale, and F. Bonaccorso, Generative adversarial networks to infer velocity components in rotating turbulent flows, The European Physical Journal E46, 31 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Solera-Rico, C

    A. Solera-Rico, C. Sanmiguel Vila, M. G´ omez-L´ opez, Y. Wang, A. Almashjary, S. T. M. Dawson, and R. Vinuesa,β- variational autoencoders and transformers for reduced-order modelling of fluid flows, Nature Communications15, 1361 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Eivazi, S

    H. Eivazi, S. Le Clainche, S. Hoyas, and R. Vinuesa, Towards extraction of orthogonal and parsimonious non-linear modes from turbulent flows, Expert Systems with Applications202, 117038 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chuang and L

    P.-Y. Chuang and L. A. Barba, Experience report of physics-informed neural networks in fluid simulations: pitfalls and frustration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14249 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    T. Li, L. Biferale, F. Bonaccorso, M. A. Scarpolini, and M. Buzzicotti, Synthetic lagrangian turbulence by generative diffusion models, Nature Machine Intelligence6, 393

  13. [21]

    D. Shu, Z. Li, and A. Barati Farimani, A physics-informed diffusion model for high-fidelity flow field reconstruction, Journal of Computational Physics478, 111972 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Zhuang, S

    Y. Zhuang, S. Cheng, and K. Duraisamy, Spatially-aware diffusion models with cross-attention for global field reconstruction with sparse observations, arXiv:2409.00230 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00230 (2024), 2409.00230 [physics]

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    P. Du, M. H. Parikh, X. Fan, X.-Y. Liu, and J.-X. Wang, Conditional neural field latent diffusion model for generating spatiotemporal turbulence, Nature Communications15, 10416 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Z. Li, W. Han, Y. Zhang, Q. Fu, J. Li, L. Qin, R. Dong, H. Sun, Y. Deng, and L. Yang, Learning spatiotemporal dynamics with a pretrained generative model, Nature Machine Intelligence6, 1566 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Vishwasrao, S

    A. Vishwasrao, S. Gutha, A. Patil, K. Wijk, B. J. McKeon, C. Gorle, H. Azizpour, and R. Vinuesa, Diffusion models for optimal sensor placement and sparse reconstruction for simplified urban flows, inCenter for Turbulence Research: Proceedings of the Summer Program 2024(2024) p...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Kawar, M

    B. Kawar, M. Elad, S. Ermon, and J. Song, Denoising Diffusion Restoration Models, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    J. Song, A. Vahdat, M. Mardani, and J. Kautz, Pseudoinverse-Guided Diffusion Models for Inverse Problems, inInterna- tional Conference on Learning Representations(2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Manohar, B

    K. Manohar, B. W. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, Data-driven sparse sensor placement for reconstruction: Demonstrating the benefits of exploiting known patterns, IEEE Control Systems38, 63 (2017). 15

    2017

  21. [29]

    M. M. Kelp, T. C. Fargiano, S. Lin, T. Liu, J. R. Turner, J. N. Kutz, and L. J. Mickley, Data-driven placement of PM2.5 air quality sensors in the united states: An approach to target urban environmental injustice, GeoHealth7, e2023GH000834 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    M. F. Balın, A. Abid, and J. Zou, Concrete Autoencoders: Differentiable Feature Selection and Reconstruction, inInter- national Conference on Machine Learning(2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    I. A. M. Huijben, B. S. Veeling, and R. J. G. van Sloun, Deep Probabilistic Subsampling for Task-Adaptive Compressed Sensing, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations(2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Yamada, O

    Y. Yamada, O. Lindenbaum, S. Negahban, and Y. Kluger, Feature Selection using Stochastic Gates, inInternational Conference on Machine Learning(2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Nilsson, K

    A. Nilsson, K. Wijk, S. bharath chandra Gutha, E. Englesson, A. Hotti, C. Saccardi, O. Kviman, J. Lagergren, R. Vinuesa, and H. Azizpour, Indirectly Parameterized Concrete Autoencoders, inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    J. E. Santos, Z. R. Fox, A. Mohan, D. O’Malley, H. Viswanathan, and N. Lubbers, Development of the senseiver for efficient field reconstruction from sparse observations, Nature Machine Intelligence5, 1317 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    S. B. C. Gutha, R. Vinuesa, and H. Azizpour, Inverse problems with diffusion models: A map estimation perspective, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)(2025) pp. 4153–4162

    2025

  28. [36]

    L. S. Shapley, A value for n-person games, Contributions to the Theory of Games2(1953)

    1953

  29. [37]

    Bommasani, D

    R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, E. Brynjolfsson, S. Buch, D. Card, R. Castellon, N. S. Chatterji, A. S. Chen, K. A. Creel, J. Davis, D. Demszky, C. Donahue, M. Doumbouya, E. Durmus, S. ...

    2021

  30. [38]

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems4768–4777(2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33(2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations(2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Chung, J

    H. Chung, J. Kim, M. T. Mccann, M. L. Klasky, and J. C. Ye, Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems, inThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations(2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Mart ´ ınez-S´ anchez, E

    A. Mart ´ ınez-S´ anchez, E. L´ opez, S. L. Clainche, A. Lozano-Dur´ an, A. Srivastava, and R. Vinuesa, Causality analysis of large-scale structures in the flow around a wall-mounted square cylinder, Journal of Fluid Mechanics967, A1 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    P. F. Fischer, J. W. Lottes, and S. G. Kerkemeier, Nek5000 web page (2008), accessed: 2025-05-16

    2008

  36. [44]

    Vinuesa, P

    R. Vinuesa, P. Schlatter, and H. M. Nagib, On minimum aspect ratio for duct flow facilities and the role of side walls in generating secondary flows, Journal of Turbulence16, 588 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models, inInternational Conference on Learning Represen- tations(2021). [46]https://github.com/openai/guided-diffusion

    2021

  38. [47]

    Cremades, S

    A. Cremades, S. Hoyas, R. Deshpande, P. Quintero, M. Lellep, W. J. Lee, J. P. Monty, N. Hutchins, M. Linkmann, I. Marusic, and R. Vinuesa, Identifying regions of importance in wall-bounded turbulence through explainable deep learning, Nature Communications15, 3864 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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