Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

OpenFOAMGPT 2.0: end-to-end, trustworthy automation for computational fluid dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 This paper reports that a four-agent LLM pipeline translates natural-language requests into complete OpenFOAM simulations with 100% success and reproducibility across more than 450 runs.

desk verdict Useful LLM-agent engineering for OpenFOAM, but the 'zero-tolerance trustworthiness' claim conflates successful execution with physical correctness and needs external validation before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19338 v1 pith:OO42SFC7 submitted 2025-04-27 physics.flu-dyn

Jingsen Feng , Ran Xu , Xu Chu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn PACS 47.11.-j47.56.+r47.85.Gj
keywords multi-agentLLMcomputationalfluiddynamicsOpenFOAMnaturallanguageinterfacesimulationautomationreproducibilityporousmediaflowaerodynamicdrag
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a four-agent large-language-model pipeline can run computational fluid dynamics from start to finish: a user describes a flow in plain English, and the system chooses the meshing strategy, writes OpenFOAM configuration files, executes the simulation, corrects its own errors, and produces publication-ready plots. Across single- and multi-phase Poiseuille flow, single- and multi-phase flow in porous media, and motorbike aerodynamics, the authors report a 100% success rate and 100% reproducibility over more than 450 simulation runs. If that holds, CFD becomes accessible to people who can describe a problem but cannot build solver cases, and parametric sweeps such as grid-independence or viscosity-ratio studies run unattended. The paper further argues that careful agent specialization and orchestration can lift LLM systems to the reliability demanded by zero-tolerance scientific computing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-agent decomposition itself, especially the deterministic self-correcting loop in the OpenFOAMGPT agent. It writes all OpenFOAM dictionaries with the model temperature set to zero, runs the case through the Allrun script inside a Dockerized OpenFOAM v2406 environment, and when execution fails, captures the error log and feeds it back to the model alongside the original prompt until the case runs. A separate Prompt Pool stores a fresh, complete prompt for every parametric variation rather than editing files after a successful run, which avoids the syntax-fragility of incremental configuration changes. That loop is what converts open-ended generation into constrained automation and is the mechanism behind the claimed reliability.

What would settle it

Run the multiphase-drainage or motorbike case through the same pipeline and compare its reported displacement efficiency or drag coefficient against an independent trusted solver or experimental data; if the outputs disagree beyond accepted uncertainty, reproducibility alone cannot support the reliability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a multi-agent LLM architecture can meet the reliability requirements of computational fluid dynamics. Four specialized agents—Pre-processing, Prompt Generation, OpenFOAMGPT, and Post-processing—split the workflow so that language understanding, case setup, execution, and analysis are each handled by a constrained component rather than one monolithic model. The OpenFOAMGPT agent generates configuration dictionaries deterministically with the model temperature set to zero, runs them in a containerized OpenFOAM v2406 environment, and on failure feeds the error log back into the model in a closed correction loop. The authors report that across single-phase and multi-phase Poiseuille flow, single- and multi-phase porous-media flow, and motorbike aerodynamics, every one of more than 450 simulations completed and reproduced exactly, with parametric sweeps generated fresh per case rather than patched from previous files.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that successful execution plus exact repetition equals trustworthy simulation, even though only one of the five case families is checked against an analytical solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A natural-language query can drive the full CFD loop—meshing, solver setup, execution, error recovery, and plotting—without human intervention.
  • Parametric studies such as grid refinement, property variations, and boundary-condition scans run unattended as a sequence of cases.
  • The 100% reproducibility result, if it generalizes, makes LLM-driven CFD acceptable for applications that tolerate no silent failure.
  • The agent decomposition can be reused for other engineering simulation domains with strict configuration syntax.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported 100% reproducibility applies to a fixed model snapshot at temperature zero; a stronger test would be repeating the same queries after a model-version update or with a different backend, and the paper does not establish stability across those.
  • Editorial inference: because verification in Section 3.6 counts repeat runs rather than error against benchmarks, the natural next stress test is to feed deliberately under-specified or contradictory queries to map where the self-correcting loop stops being reliable.
  • Editorial inference: the same architecture should transfer to other strict-syntax numerical solvers, but the reliability claim would need fresh validation on each solver's failure modes.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes OpenFOAMGPT 2.0, a multi-agent LLM framework that converts natural-language queries into end-to-end OpenFOAM simulations. Four specialized agents (Pre-processing, Prompt Generation, OpenFOAMGPT simulator, Post-processing) collaborate to handle mesh generation, prompt construction, simulation execution with error-driven iterative refinement, and automated visualization. The framework is evaluated on five case types: single- and multi-phase Poiseuille flow, single- and multi-phase flow in porous media, and motorbike aerodynamics. Across 455 reported simulation cases, the authors claim 100% success and reproducibility, and they conclude that properly designed multi-agent systems can meet the reliability standards of zero-tolerance scientific computing.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, this would be a notable engineering contribution: an automated, conversational CFD pipeline with a sensible agent decomposition and an error-driven refinement loop that retries failed simulations. The diversity of case studies and the large run count are useful stress tests of the automation pipeline, and the single analytical validation for Poiseuille flow is a positive step. However, the headline claim that the system achieves the reliability standards of zero-tolerance scientific computing is not established by the reported evidence, because the trustworthiness metrics measure execution success and reproducibility rather than physical fidelity. The paper is best read as a promising demonstration of end-to-end automation; the reliability claim needs substantially stronger evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.6, Table 1; Abstract; Section 4] Trustworthiness is operationalized in Section 3.6 as repeat count, continuous simulations, and success rate, where success is defined as a run completing without error and being reproducible. These metrics do not measure whether the simulated physics is correct. The error-driven iterative refinement loop in Section 2 retries failed runs until they succeed, so a high completion rate is partly an artifact of the retry mechanism. Across the 455 cases, only the single-phase Poiseuille flow is checked against an independent analytical solution, and no quantitative error tolerance or error norm is reported. Section 3.2 cites an analytical solution for stratified flow [37] but presents only visualizations, with no comparison of simulated and theoretical profiles. Sections 3.3-3.5 report no comparison with published correlations, experimental measurements, or independent benchmark solvers for permeability, drainage efficiency, or drag coefficient. The central claim that the framework 'can achieve the reliability standards necessary for zero-tolerance scientific computing applications' therefore remains unsupported. Suggested concrete additions: report L2 or maximum relative error for the Poiseuille case; compare computed permeability with a known correlation such as Kozeny-Carman or a benchmark pore-scale result; report numerical Cd values for the motorbike case and compare with wind-tunnel data or published drag predictions; and compare multiphase drainage results with a reference solution or micromodel experiment.
  2. [Section 2, OpenFOAMGPT module; Section 3.6] The paper states that setting the temperature parameter to 0 ensures 'consistent, deterministic outputs,' but commercial LLM APIs do not formally guarantee exact determinism at temperature 0, and model updates or server-side changes can alter responses even with identical inputs. The reproducibility claim in Section 3.6 would be far more credible if the paper specified the exact model version, all API sampling parameters, hashes of the system prompts and generated configuration files, and if it demonstrated determinism across multiple independent API calls made at different times. Without this, the reported '100% reproducibility' may reflect the specific execution environment rather than a guaranteed property of the architecture.
  3. [Sections 3.3-3.5; Table 1] The paper does not provide the prompts, generated OpenFOAM case files, or the system code, nor does it report error bars or distributions for the measured quantities such as permeability, displacement efficiency, or drag coefficient. For a paper whose core claim is trustworthiness and reproducibility, this prevents independent verification. For example, Section 3.3 mentions a 2% criterion for mesh independence but gives no repeatability or uncertainty information for the permeability extraction; Section 3.5 states that drag coefficient varies with velocity but lists no numerical values. Releasing the agent code, prompts, and case configurations, and reporting the spread of results across repeats, would substantially strengthen the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The header 'Aerodyn.Single-phase porous media' appears as a single concatenated column label; it should be split into separate columns, e.g., 'Aerodynamics motorbike' and 'Single-phase porous media (extended experiment).'
  2. [Section 3.2] The text says 'the successful execution of three continuous simulations' where it appears to mean three series of continuous simulations; please rephrase for clarity.
  3. [Section 3.3] The buffer regions are described as '0.025% of the domain length,' which for a 4 mm domain is about 1 micron; please verify whether this is a typo for 2.5% or some other value, since the buffer size affects pressure boundary condition placement.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Reference [37]] Reference [37] is described as the source of the analytical solution for stratified flow, but the citation is a Lattice Boltzmann study; please provide the explicit analytical velocity profiles used and clarify how the reference is used for quantitative validation.
  5. [Section 3.5 and Figure 5] The drag coefficient analysis is described only qualitatively; include the numerical Cd values in the text or a table so that the claimed velocity dependence can be assessed.
  6. [Sections 2 and 3.6] The terms 'reproducibility' and 'repeatability' are used interchangeably; please clarify whether the claim is bit-identical replication of configuration files and logs or statistical reproducibility of the pipeline outcomes.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The trustworthiness verdict leans on self-defined success and reproducibility metrics, but no derivational circularity or load-bearing self-citation is present.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.6 (Table 1) and Section 2 'Error-Driven Iterative Refinement']
    "High trustworthiness is a critical requirement for CFD simulations, where even minor inconsistencies can lead to significant discrepancies in results. ... To rigorously assess this aspect of our framework, we conducted extensive verification experiments across all test cases (Table 1). ... This creates a closed-loop learning process where the system iteratively improves configurations based on specific error feedback until achieving successful simulation."

    The paper's trustworthiness verification is operationalized entirely through the pipeline's own execution outcomes: Table 1 lists repeat count, number of continuous simulations, total cases, and success rate. 'Success' is defined by the Section 2 error-driven loop, which retries until the simulation runs, so a 100% success rate is partly the loop's own termination condition rather than an independent measure of physical correctness. Only the Section 3.1 single-phase Poiseuille case is compared with an analytical solution, and no quantitative error tolerance is reported; Sections 3.2-3.5 present visualizations and parameter trends without benchmarking against the cited stratified-flow solution, experiments, or independent solvers.

full rationale

No fitted-parameter derivation or equation-level circularity is present: the paper builds and tests an LLM-agent pipeline rather than deriving a prediction from data fitted to that same prediction. The single-phase Poiseuille case is checked against an independent analytical solution, and repeated-execution reproducibility is a legitimate automation property. The only mild circular burden is that the headline zero-tolerance trustworthiness conclusion is supported mainly by Table 1's success/reproducibility metrics, which are defined by the system's own completion criterion and do not by themselves establish physical accuracy for the porous-media, multiphase, and aerodynamic cases. This is a self-referential validation step, not a forced derivation, and the self-citations to the prior OpenFOAMGPT work [34,35] are descriptive rather than load-bearing for the central claim. Score 2 reflects one mild self-referential step with otherwise independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an engineering system, not a physics derivation, so there are no fitted constants or new physical entities. The assumptions above are load-bearing for the trustworthiness claim.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Setting LLM temperature to 0 yields deterministic, reproducible outputs across multiple API calls.
    Section 2 (OpenFOAMGPT Configuration Generation) states that temperature 0 'ensures consistent, deterministic outputs,' but commercial LLM APIs do not guarantee bitwise determinism, so reproducibility may not hold in practice.
  • ad hoc to paper A simulation that completes without error and repeats identically is physically trustworthy.
    Section 3.6 builds the trustworthiness claim on run completion and repeat counts; this identifies 'success' with execution stability rather than physical accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OpenFOAMGPT 2.0: end-to-end, trustworthy automation for computational fluid dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OO42SFC7

@misc{pith2026250419338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OpenFOAMGPT 2.0: end-to-end, trustworthy automation for computational fluid dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OO42SFC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19338}
}
read the original abstract

We propose the first multi agent framework for computational fluid dynamics that enables fully automated, end to end simulations directly from natural language queries. The approach integrates four specialized agents Pre processing, Prompt Generation, OpenFOAMGPT (simulator), and Post processing decomposing complex computational fluid dynamics workflows into collaborative components powered by large language models. Extensive validation through diverse case studies, including Poiseuille flows, single and multi phase porous media flows, and aerodynamic analyses, demonstrates 100% success and reproducibility rates across over 450 simulations. Rigorous trustworthiness verification confirms that properly designed multi agent systems can achieve the reliability standards necessary for zero tolerance scientific computing applications while significantly lowering entry barriers. The framework establishes a foundation for conversation-driven simulation workflows in computational science, potentially accelerating discovery and innovation through more accessible tools for complex numerical simulations. Results reveal that multi-agent architectures, when properly specialized and orchestrated, can effectively handle the stringent requirements of computational physics while maintaining the intuitive interface of natural language interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19338 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The design of multi-Agent framework for CFD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Validation and parametric studies of Poiseuille flow simulations. (a) Comparison between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of single-phase flow in porous media simulation. (a) Grid independence study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Displacement efficiency in drainage process of multi-phase flow through porous media. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of aerodynamics of a motorbike simulation. (a) Drag coefficient ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of 100 continuous simulations with the pressure difference changing uniformly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.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. PhysMiner: An Agentic AI Framework for Discovering Turbulence Physics

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An agentic framework combining triple velocity-gradient decomposition with LLM reasoning autonomously proposes and validates an improved SGS model for separated turbulent flow.

  2. AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes AI-for-research work into five tasks, comprehension, survey, discovery, writing, and peer review, and compiles associated tools and benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [37]

    Yiotis, John Psihogios, Michael E

    Andreas G. Yiotis, John Psihogios, Michael E. Kainourgiakis, Aggelos Papaioannou, and Athanassios K. Stubos. A lattice boltzmann study of viscous coupling effects in immiscible two-phase flow in porous media. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 300(1-2):35–49, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [1]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint 9 arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Crispr-gpt: An llm agent for automated design of gene-editing experiments

    Kaixuan Huang, Yuanhao Qu, Henry Cousins, William A Johnson, Di Yin, Mihir Shah, Denny Zhou, Russ Altman, Mengdi Wang, and Le Cong. Crispr-gpt: An llm agent for automated design of gene-editing experiments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18021, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Mechgpt, a language-based strategy for mechanics and materials modeling that connects knowledge across scales, disciplines, and modalities

    Markus J Buehler. Mechgpt, a language-based strategy for mechanics and materials modeling that connects knowledge across scales, disciplines, and modalities. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 76(2):021001, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Rapid and automated alloy design with graph neural network-powered llm-driven multi-agent systems

    Alireza Ghafarollahi and Markus J Buehler. Rapid and automated alloy design with graph neural network-powered llm-driven multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13768 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Bernstein

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , pages 1–22, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Self-collaboration code generation via chatgpt

    Yihong Dong, Xue Jiang, Zhi Jin, and Ge Li. Self-collaboration code generation via chatgpt. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , 33(7):1–38, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Tenenbaum, Tianmin Shu, and Chuang Gan

    Hongxin Zhang, Weihua Du, Jiaming Shan, Qinhong Zhou, Yilun Du, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Tianmin Shu, and Chuang Gan. Building cooperative embodied agents modularly with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02485, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning

    Xiangru Tang, Anni Zou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Ziming Li, Yilun Zhao, Xingyao Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Mark Gerstein. Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Rethinking the buyer’s inspection paradox in information markets with language agents

    Martin Weiss, Nasim Rahaman, Manuel Wuthrich, Yoshua Bengio, Li Erran Li, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Christopher Pal. Rethinking the buyer’s inspection paradox in information markets with language agents. 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Boiko, Robert MacKnight, and Gabe Gomes

    Daniil A. Boiko, Robert MacKnight, and Gabe Gomes. Emergent autonomous scientific research capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05332, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Mdteamgpt: A self-evolving llm-based multi-agent framework for multi-disciplinary team medical consultation

    Kai Chen, Xinfeng Li, Tianpei Yang, Hewei Wang, Wei Dong, and Yang Gao. Mdteamgpt: A self-evolving llm-based multi-agent framework for multi-disciplinary team medical consultation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13856, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A survey on llm-based multi-agent systems: Workflow, infrastructure, and challenges

    Xinyi Li, Sai Wang, Siqi Zeng, Yu Wu, and Yi Yang. A survey on llm-based multi-agent systems: Workflow, infrastructure, and challenges. Vicinagearth, 1(1):9, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Fincon: A synthesized llm multi-agent system with conceptual verbal reinforcement for enhanced financial decision making

    Yangyang Yu, Zhiyuan Yao, Haohang Li, Zhiyang Deng, Yuechen Jiang, Yupeng Cao, Zhi Chen, et al. Fincon: A synthesized llm multi-agent system with conceptual verbal reinforcement for enhanced financial decision making. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37: 137...

    2024

  7. [14]

    Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making

    Yubin Kim, Chanwoo Park, Hyewon Jeong, Yik Siu Chan, Xuhai Xu, Daniel McDuff, Hyeon- hoon Lee, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Park. Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:79410...

    2024

  8. [15]

    Worldcoder: A model-based llm agent building world models by writing code and interacting with the environment

    Hao Tang, Darren Key, and Kevin Ellis. Worldcoder: A model-based llm agent building world models by writing code and interacting with the environment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:70148–70212, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Discoveryworld: A virtual environment for developing and evaluating automated scientific discovery agents

    Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Tushar Khot, Erin Bransom, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Oyvind Tafjord, and Peter Clark. Discoveryworld: A virtual environment for developing and evaluating automated scientific discovery agents. Advances in Neural Infor...

    2024

  10. [17]

    The ai scien- tist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292, 2024

    Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, Jakob Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The ai scien- tist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Spatial and spectral characteristics of information flux between turbulent boundary layers and porous media.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 949:A16, 2022

    Wenkang Wang, Adrián Lozano-Durán, Rainer Helmig, and Xu Chu. Spatial and spectral characteristics of information flux between turbulent boundary layers and porous media.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 949:A16, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Deep neural networks for data-driven LES closure models

    Andrea Beck, David Flad, and Claus-Dieter Munz. Deep neural networks for data-driven LES closure models. Journal of Computational Physics, 398:108910, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    Turbulence modeling in the age of data

    Karthik Duraisamy, Gianluca Iaccarino, and Heng Xiao. Turbulence modeling in the age of data. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 51:357–377, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning

    Ricardo Vinuesa and Steven L Brunton. Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning. Nature Computational Science, 2(6):358–366, 2022

    2022

  15. [22]

    Information transfer between turbulent boundary layer and porous media

    Wenkang Wang, Xu Chu, Adrián Lozano-Durán, Rainer Helmig, and Bernhard Weigand. Information transfer between turbulent boundary layer and porous media. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 920:A21, 2021

    2021

  16. [23]

    J. Wu, H. Xiao, and E. Paterson. Physics-informed machine learning approach for augmenting turbulence models: A comprehensive framework. Physical Review Fluids, 3(7):074602, 2018

    2018

  17. [24]

    Neuralcfd: Deep learning on high-fidelity automotive aerodynamics simulations

    Maurits Bleeker, Matthias Dorfer, Tobias Kronlachner, Reinhard Sonnleitner, Benedikt Alkin, and Johannes Brandstetter. Neuralcfd: Deep learning on high-fidelity automotive aerodynamics simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09692, 2025

    2025

  18. [25]

    Optimized flow control based on automatic differentiation in compressible turbulent channel flows

    Wenkang Wang and Xu Chu. Optimized flow control based on automatic differentiation in compressible turbulent channel flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23415, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting

    Remi Lam, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Matthew Willson, Peter Wirnsberger, Meire Fortunato, Ferran Alet, Suman Ravuri, Timo Ewalds, Zach Eaton-Rosen, Weihua Hu, et al. Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting. Science, 382(6677):1416–1421, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Simulation of an annular liquid jet with a coaxial supersonic gas jet in a medical inhaler

    Yanchao Liu, Anne Geppert, Xu Chu, Benjamin Heine, and Bernhard Weigand. Simulation of an annular liquid jet with a coaxial supersonic gas jet in a medical inhaler. Atomization and Sprays, 31(9), 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Investigation on the performance of a torque-driven undulatory swimmer with distributed flexibility

    Wenkang Wang and Xu Chu. Investigation on the performance of a torque-driven undulatory swimmer with distributed flexibility. Physics of Fluids, 36(2), 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    Data-driven methods for flow and transport in porous media: a review

    Guang Yang, Ran Xu, Yusong Tian, Songyuan Guo, Jingyi Wu, and Xu Chu. Data-driven methods for flow and transport in porous media: a review. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 235:126149, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Balhoff, Moran Wang, and Shiyi Chen

    Chiyu Xie, Wenhai Lei, Matthew T. Balhoff, Moran Wang, and Shiyi Chen. Self-adaptive preferential flow control using displacing fluid with dispersed polymers in heterogeneous porous media. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 906:A10, 2021

    2021

  24. [31]

    Fine-tuning an large language model for automating computational fluid dynamics simulations

    Zhehao Dong, Zhen Lu, and Yue Yang. Fine-tuning an large language model for automating computational fluid dynamics simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09602, 2025

    2025

  25. [32]

    Large language models for automatic equation discovery of nonlinear dynamics

    Mengge Du, Yuntian Chen, Zhongzheng Wang, Longfeng Nie, and Dongxiao Zhang. Large language models for automatic equation discovery of nonlinear dynamics. Physics of Fluids, 36 (9), 2024

    2024

  26. [33]

    Training microrobots to swim by a large language model, 2024

    Zhuoqun Xu and Lailai Zhu. Training microrobots to swim by a large language model, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00044

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Openfoamgpt: A retrieval-augmented large language model (llm) agent for openfoam-based computational fluid dynamics

    Sandeep Pandey, Ran Xu, Wenkang Wang, and Xu Chu. Openfoamgpt: A retrieval-augmented large language model (llm) agent for openfoam-based computational fluid dynamics. Physics of Fluids, 37(3), 2025. 11

    2025

  28. [35]

    A status quo investigation of large language models towards cost-effective cfd automation with openfoamgpt: Chatgpt vs

    Wenkang Wang, Ran Xu, Jingsen Feng, Qingfu Zhang, and Xu Chu. A status quo investigation of large language models towards cost-effective cfd automation with openfoamgpt: Chatgpt vs. qwen vs. deepseek. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02888, 2025

    2025

  29. [36]

    A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques

    Henry G Weller, Gavin Tabor, Hrvoje Jasak, and Christer Fureby. A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques. Computers in physics, 12(6):620–631, 1998

    1998

  30. [38]

    Critical rev size of multiphase flow in porous media for upscaling by pore-scale modeling

    Tong Liu and Moran Wang. Critical rev size of multiphase flow in porous media for upscaling by pore-scale modeling. Transport in Porous Media, 144(1):111–132, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    A 2.5-d glass micromodel for investigation of multi-phase flow in porous media

    Ke Xu, Tianbo Liang, Peixi Zhu, Pengpeng Qi, Jun Lu, Chun Huh, and Matthew Balhoff. A 2.5-d glass micromodel for investigation of multi-phase flow in porous media. Lab on a Chip , 17(4):640–646, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    A microfluidic investigation of the synergistic effect of nanoparticles and surfactants in macro-emulsion-based enhanced oil recovery

    Ke Xu, Peixi Zhu, Tatiana Colon, Chun Huh, and Matthew Balhoff. A microfluidic investigation of the synergistic effect of nanoparticles and surfactants in macro-emulsion-based enhanced oil recovery. SPE Journal, 22(2):459–469, 2017. 12

    2017

Pith tools

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