REVIEW 2 cited by
Verification and Validation for Trustworthy Scientific Machine Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Scientific machine learning (SciML) models are transforming many scientific disciplines. However, the development of good modeling practices to increase the trustworthiness of SciML has lagged behind its application, limiting its potential impact. The goal of this paper is to start a discussion on establishing consensus-based good practices for predictive SciML. We identify key challenges in applying existing computational science and engineering guidelines, such as verification and validation protocols, and provide recommendations to address these challenges. Our discussion focuses on predictive SciML, which uses machine learning models to learn, improve, and accelerate numerical simulations of physical systems. While centered on predictive applications, our 16 recommendations aim to help researchers conduct and document their modeling processes rigorously across all SciML domains.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
A Continual Validation, Updating, and Decision-Making Framework for Self-Adaptive Digital Twins via Robust Model Predictive Control: A Case Study in Additive Manufacturing
An adaptive digital twin framework integrating Fisher-score drift detection, LoRA fine-tuning, and Mann-Whitney U validation restores predictive accuracy and uncertainty calibration under concept drift.
-
Bridging the Gap on AI-Assisted Scientific Software Development Through Transparency and Traceability
Proposes guidance for responsible AI use in scientific software development under NQA-1 standards, illustrated with TMAP8 V&V cases to ensure accountability and auditability.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.