Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

SPIEDiff: robust learning of long-time macroscopic dynamics from short-time particle simulations with quantified epistemic uncertainty

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A statistical-physics diffusion model recovers long-time macroscopic dynamics from short-time particle simulations, with uncertainty bounds.

desk verdict Solid diffusion-based robustness upgrade for Stat-PINNs, but the epinet 'epistemic uncertainty' is a distillation artifact and should be reframed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13501 v1 pith:WJK6ZFAB submitted 2025-05-16 cs.LG physics.comp-ph

Zequn He , Celia Reina This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGphysics.comp-ph
keywords dissipativedynamicsGENERICformalismfluctuation-dissipationrelationconditionaldiffusionmodelsepistemicuncertaintyneuralnetworkscoarse-grainingkineticMonteCarlo
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 claims that the long-time thermodynamics and kinetics of purely dissipative particle systems can be learned from short-time particle simulations, even when the data are scarce or noisy, by combining fluctuation-dissipation relations with conditional diffusion models and epistemic neural networks. In tests on stochastic Arrhenius particle processes, the learned free energy and dissipative operator match the known analytic long-range model, and in a strong short-range interaction case the learned single-well free energy corrects the analytic model's erroneous double-well prediction while the macroscopic evolution tracks kinetic Monte Carlo simulations. The payoff is practical: once trained, SPIEDiff produces long-time continuum predictions with uncertainty bounds in minutes, compared with days or years for direct particle simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the infinite-dimensional fluctuation-dissipation relation (Eq. 6): after choosing a finite-element basis, each entry of the discretized dissipative operator is estimated as the covariation of rescaled fluctuations of the coarse-grained particle density, under the assumption that the particle field follows an Itô stochastic PDE with the operator and free energy appearing explicitly. A tridiagonal structure-preserving parameterization then reduces the operator to one off-diagonal function $K_1$, with the diagonal fixed by mass conservation and positive semi-definiteness enforced by $K_1 \le 0$. The free energy density is learned by fitting the discretized gradient-flow residual over a short macroscopic time step, using a conditional diffusion model whose uncertainty comes from an epinet; a deterministic DDIM sampler with few reverse steps makes prediction with many uncertainty samples cheap.

What would settle it

Run the fluctuation-dissipation estimator on a particle model with controlled colored noise or with measurements taken before local equilibration, and compare the inferred operator to direct estimates from longer-time statistics; a systematic dependence of the inferred entries on the measurement window $h$ (or a visibly biased free energy against equilibrium sampling) would falsify the premise that short-time fluctuations are white and locally equilibrated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the non-uniqueness problem in learning macroscopic thermodynamics is broken by fluctuation data: the dissipative operator is not inferred from the mean macroscopic evolution but read off from the covariance of rescaled particle-density fluctuations, and the free energy is then learned from short-time mean evolution using the structure-preserving discretized operator. Building the estimator and the free-energy fit on conditional denoising diffusion models, with lightweight epistemic networks trained by knowledge distillation, makes the learned thermodynamic components stable under limited and noisy training data and supplies uncertainty bands. In the strong short-range interaction regime, SPIEDiff recovers a single-well free energy where the analytic long-range model predicts a double well, and the resulting macroscopic dynamics agree with kinetic Monte Carlo simulations that the analytic model misses.

Load-bearing premise

The formula that turns fluctuation data into the dissipative operator assumes the particle density obeys an Itô stochastic differential equation driven by white space-time noise and that the system is in local equilibrium when the measurements are taken; if either fails, the estimated operator is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-time macroscopic evolution of purely dissipative systems becomes predictable from short-time particle data alone, sidestepping the time-scale bottleneck of direct simulation.
  • The learned thermodynamic potential is identifiable rather than arbitrary: fluctuation statistics select the dissipative operator compatible with the particle process, so the pair $(K_z, F[z])$ is not just one of many fits to the same mean dynamics.
  • Epistemic uncertainty is quantified for the operator, the free energy, and the propagated dynamics, so continuum predictions carry practical error bars that cover the particle-simulation reference points in the paper's examples.
  • Where analytic coarse-grained thermodynamics fail qualitatively, as in strong short-range interactions, the data-driven framework can still produce a single-well free energy and correct kinetics.
  • Computational cost shifts from the particle-simulation timescale (days to years) to minutes of training and prediction, even including the many realizations needed for uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same covariance-to-operator route could in principle extend to closed GENERIC systems by learning an entropy functional instead of a free energy, but the paper only treats the purely dissipative isothermal setting.
  • The paper leaves open whether the method tolerates colored or non-Markovian noise; a stress test varying the measurement window $h$ would reveal whether the fluctuation-dissipation premise breaks.
  • The authors state in their limitations section that uncertainty calibration needs further work before statistical coverage is guaranteed, so the displayed intervals are most safely read as indicative bounds.
  • Because DDIM sampling keeps accuracy at two reverse steps, data generation dominates cost, suggesting active selection of initial profiles as the next efficiency lever.
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 SPIEDiff, a machine-learning framework for learning the long-time macroscopic dynamics and thermodynamic potentials of purely dissipative particle systems from short-time kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) simulations. The method extends the Stat-PINNs approach by replacing deterministic neural networks with conditional denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs) and by augmenting them with epinets for uncertainty quantification. The dissipative operator is estimated from particle fluctuations through a fluctuation-dissipation relation, and the free energy is learned from the short-time macroscopic evolution via a physics-informed loss. The learned components are then integrated to produce long-time continuum predictions. Experiments on 1D Arrhenius lattice-gas models with long-range, weak short-range, and strong short-range interactions show that the mean predictions agree well with the analytical long-range model or with full KMC simulations, and that SPIEDiff is more robust than Stat-PINNs when the training data are scarce or noisy.

Significance. If the uncertainty-quantification claim were established, this would be a significant contribution to SciML for dissipative systems: the combination of fluctuation-dissipation constraints with generative models addresses the operator/potential non-uniqueness, and the strong short-range interaction result (single-well free energy versus LRM's double well) is a compelling demonstration that the method can discover qualitatively correct thermodynamics when the analytical model fails. The authors share the training datasets publicly, which supports reproducibility, and the reported computational-cost comparison is transparent. However, the central UQ claim is not currently supported by the training procedure or by validation statistics; the mean-model contribution is solid, but the paper's title and abstract overstate the reliability of the uncertainty bounds.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (10)] The epinet training objective is a knowledge-distillation regression to a fixed teacher target for each epistemic index φ. For every sample, all φ are regressed to the same target \hat K1(s) or \hat f(s); the loss is a sum of per-φ squared errors. The global minimizer sets the epinet prediction equal to the conditional mean of the teacher target for every φ, so the φ-dependent variation—the quantity reported as epistemic uncertainty—is driven to zero (up to model capacity and optimization error). The reported standard-deviation maps and 95% confidence intervals in Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 7 are therefore residuals of an underdetermined optimization, not estimates of model uncertainty. The prior-network term can be canceled by the learnable part without affecting the loss, so the width of the reported intervals is not controlled by a meaningful objective. The paper's limitations statement that calibration is needed does not resolve this: calibrating an artifact does not make it a posterior. To support the title claim, the epinet should be trained with an objective that preserves a principled predictive distribution (e.g., a proper ENN loss, an ensemble teacher with per-φ targets, or explicit posterior-matching), or the output should be reframed as a sensitivity band without the phrase 'epistemic uncertainty'.
  2. [Section 5, Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7; Appendix F] The paper does not provide any quantitative calibration or coverage analysis for the reported 95% confidence intervals. Statements such as 'most of the KMC data points are successfully captured' and 'the uncertainty bounds consistently encompassing the LRM and KMC data points' are not statistical evidence; with sufficiently wide intervals such statements are vacuous, and the figures do not report interval widths or coverage counts. Since 'quantified epistemic uncertainty' is a central claim, the authors should report empirical coverage probabilities over the full space-time validation set for each experiment (long-range, weak and strong short-range, scarcer-data, noisier-data), ideally with a calibration plot, and discuss whether the intervals widen when data are scarcer or noisier.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (9); Appendix A.1] The definition of the conditioning and target variables for the base network NNf is ambiguous and appears circular. The auxiliary quantity Υ is defined as the residual Σ_i ⟨γj,γi⟩ Δz_i/Δt, the same quantity that appears in the physics-informed loss, and the network is conditioned on the noisy version Υ_ω of this target. The inference procedure for generating Q (and hence f) from the trained model is not specified precisely: a reader cannot tell what value of Υ is used at inference, how the 2000 realizations described in Appendix B are sampled, and how the reported mean and confidence intervals for f are obtained. Please specify the full forward pass at inference and clarify the role of Υ, or the results cannot be reproduced.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract states 'reliable epistemic uncertainty bounds' while the Limitations section concedes that calibration is needed to ensure rigorous statistical coverage; these statements should be reconciled and the abstract's wording softened unless new calibration results are added.
  2. [Table 9] The last row is labeled '21–28' but the previous row ends at 21; this should likely be '22–28'.
  3. [Table 1] The KMC 'full simulation' runtimes (3500, 875, and 625 days) are presented without explaining how they are estimated; please add a footnote describing the calculation or extrapolation.
  4. [Appendix E] The paper refers to Appendix H of [18] for the exact KMC parameters (h, ∆t, teq, interaction potentials); the journal version should include these parameters or a summary so that the experiments are self-contained.
  5. [Eq. (8)] The notation \hat K1(Z1(s)_{is}, K1(s)(ω), ω) uses the noisy variable as the second argument, which is confusing because it is not a conditioning variable; the notation should be aligned with standard DDPM notation.
  6. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The line 'with pΩ∼N (0, I)' is missing the argument: it should read p(yΩ) ∼ N (0, I).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Epinet uncertainty is trained by distillation to fixed teacher targets; Eq. (10) suppresses φ-variation, so the reported CIs are optimization residuals rather than epistemic uncertainty; thermodynamic learning itself is independently validated.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Eq. (10); Section 5 (Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7); Section 6 Limitations]
    "The teacher models are the pre-trained conditional DDPMs, NNK1 and NNf, respectively, which provide target predictions: K̂(s)1 and f̂(s) for each sample. ... The loss function minimized to jointly train both epinets is [Eq. (10)] ... 1/MK1 Σ_{φ∈Φ} Σ_{s∈D̃K1} [ ||−K̃1(Z1(s)_{i_s−1},φ)−K̃1(Z1(s)_{i_s},φ)−K̂(s)0||^2 + ||K̃1(Z1(s)_{i_s},φ)−K̂(s)1||^2 ] + 1/Mf Σ_{φ∈Φ} Σ_{s∈D̃f} || f̃(Zf(s)_{i_s},φ)−f̂(s)||^2"

    In Eq. (10), each epistemic index φ is regressed to the same fixed teacher targets K̂1 and f̂. The minimizer of these per-φ squared errors is φ-independent (the epinet can cancel the random-prior term σP), so the φ-variation that SPIEDiff reports as epistemic uncertainty is driven to zero by the training objective. The nonzero standard-deviation maps and 95% CIs in Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 7 are thus residuals of an underdetermined optimization, not a posterior over functions. The paper's own Limitations statement ('need for further calibration of the epistemic uncertainty to ensure rigorous statistical coverage') flags the coverage gap, but the objective itself does not target a posterior, so calibration cannot make the spread meaningful.

full rationale

The core derivation of Kz and f is not circular: Kz is estimated from fluctuation-dissipation data (Eq. 6) using a published theorem [19], f is fit to the short-time macroscopic residual (Eq. 9), and the long-time continuum predictions are checked against separate KMC/LRM results. The self-citations to Stat-PINNs [18] and to [19] are external peer-reviewed derivations with assumptions that do not include the present fitted values, so they are legitimate support, not load-bearing circularity. The one significant by-construction step is the epistemic uncertainty: Eq. (10) minimizes, for every epistemic index φ, the squared distance to the same fixed teacher prediction, so the loss drives the φ-dependent spread to zero; the displayed standard-deviation maps and CIs are the leftover optimization residual, not a posterior over models. This affects the UQ claim, not the thermodynamic discovery, which remains independently validated.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on established fluctuation-dissipation and GENERIC results, with a few hand-chosen hyperparameters and calibration references that do not change the conclusions.

free parameters (3)
  • Calibration reference densities ρr0, ρr1 = 0.5, 0.5
    Eq. 11 uses these references to fix the arbitrary affine offset of the learned free energy density. The choice affects visualization of f but not the dynamics.
  • Transformation constant in g(K1) = exp(-5)
    Appendix A.1: a small constant added to ensure positive semi-definiteness of the discretized operator; chosen by hand from previous work.
  • Epinet prior scale κ = 1
    Table 3: sets the scale of the prior network in the epinet; chosen as a hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mesoscale particle density follows the Ito stochastic PDE ∂t z^ε = -K_{z^ε} δF[z^ε]/δz^ε + sqrt(2ε K_{z^ε}) \dot W.
    Eq. 6 and Section 4.1, taken from [19]. This legitimizes the fluctuation-dissipation estimator for Kz. If the particle process is not well described by this model, the operator estimates are biased.
  • domain assumption For conserved fields, the discretized dissipative operator is tridiagonal and satisfies K0(i) = -K1(i-1) - K1(i), with K1 ≤ 0 guaranteeing positive semi-definiteness.
    Section 4.2, from [18]. Limits the operator to local, one-dimensional structure.
  • domain assumption The Arrhenius lattice gas model with nearest-neighbor hopping is a valid microscopic description of the systems studied.
    Section 5.1; the benchmark KMC simulations use this model.
  • domain assumption The free energy density f depends only on the local density ρ.
    Appendix B (Inference and continuum predictions); used for Q = f'(ρ), simplifying the learned functional.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPIEDiff: robust learning of long-time macroscopic dynamics from short-time particle simulations with quantified epistemic uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJK6ZFAB

@misc{pith2026250513501,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPIEDiff: robust learning of long-time macroscopic dynamics from short-time particle simulations with quantified epistemic uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJK6ZFAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13501}
}
read the original abstract

The data-driven discovery of long-time macroscopic dynamics and thermodynamics of dissipative systems with particle fidelity is hampered by significant obstacles. These include the strong time-scale limitations inherent to particle simulations, the non-uniqueness of the thermodynamic potentials and operators from given macroscopic dynamics, and the need for efficient uncertainty quantification. This paper introduces Statistical-Physics Informed Epistemic Diffusion Models (SPIEDiff), a machine learning framework designed to overcome these limitations in the context of purely dissipative systems by leveraging statistical physics, conditional diffusion models, and epinets. We evaluate the proposed framework on stochastic Arrhenius particle processes and demonstrate that SPIEDiff can accurately uncover both thermodynamics and kinetics, while enabling reliable long-time macroscopic predictions using only short-time particle simulation data. SPIEDiff can deliver accurate predictions with quantified uncertainty in minutes, drastically reducing the computational demand compared to direct particle simulations, which would take days or years in the examples considered. Overall, SPIEDiff offers a robust and trustworthy pathway for the data-driven discovery of thermodynamic models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13501 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the proposed framework for purely dissipative isothermal processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SPIEDiff results compared with the analytical long-range model (LRM) and kinetic Monte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the training datasets used for the case of long-range interactions. These are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of SPIEDiff and baseline models (Stat-PINNs, LRM) under challenging data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detailed schematic of the SPIEDiff framework architecture and sequential training pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SPIEDiff results compared with the long-range model (LRM) and kinetic Monte Carlo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SPIEDiff results compared with the long-range model (LRM) and kinetic Monte Carlo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evaluation of SPIEDiff’s predictive accuracy and uncertainty quantification compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evaluation of SPIEDiff’s predictive accuracy and uncertainty quantification compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Structure-preserving uncertainty quantification for GENERIC dynamics

    cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    S-PENNs inject epistemic uncertainty into hard-constrained GENERIC neural networks blockwise, preserving energy conservation and nonnegative entropy production in every sample, and use split conformal prediction to ca...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Computational inelasticity, volume 7

    Juan C Simo and Thomas JR Hughes. Computational inelasticity, volume 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Dissipative particle dynamics: introduction, methodology and complex fluid applications—a review

    Emad Moeendarbary, Teng Yong Ng, and M Zangeneh. Dissipative particle dynamics: introduction, methodology and complex fluid applications—a review. International Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1 (04):737–763, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Dissipative phenomena in condensed matter: some applications, volume 71

    Sushanta Dattagupta and Sanjay Puri. Dissipative phenomena in condensed matter: some applications, volume 71. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Dissipative phenomena in quark-gluon plasmas.Physical Review D, 31(1):53, 1985

    Pawel Danielewicz and Miklos Gyulassy. Dissipative phenomena in quark-gluon plasmas.Physical Review D, 31(1):53, 1985

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Modeling materials: continuum, atomistic and multiscale techniques

    Ellad B Tadmor and Ronald E Miller. Modeling materials: continuum, atomistic and multiscale techniques. Cambridge university press, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics

    Robert Zwanzig. Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. Oxford university press, 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Extracting macroscopic dynamics: model problems and algorithms

    Dror Givon, Raz Kupferman, and Andrew Stuart. Extracting macroscopic dynamics: model problems and algorithms. Nonlinearity, 17(6):R55, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations

    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

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Data-driven science and engineering: Machine learning, dynamical systems, and control

    Steven L Brunton and J Nathan Kutz. Data-driven science and engineering: Machine learning, dynamical systems, and control. Cambridge University Press, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Beyond equilibrium thermodynamics

    HC Öttinger. Beyond equilibrium thermodynamics. John Wilcy & Sons, Sew Jersey, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Structure- preserving neural networks

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

    2021

  6. [14]

    Machine learning structure preserving brackets for forecasting irreversible processes

    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

  7. [15]

    GFINNs: GENERIC formalism informed neural networks for deterministic and stochastic dynamical systems

    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, 380(2229):20210207, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Efficiently parameterized neural metriplectic systems

    Anthony Gruber, Kookjin Lee, Haksoo Lim, Noseong Park, and Nathaniel Trask. Efficiently parameterized neural metriplectic systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16305, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Variational Onsager Neural Networks (VONNs): A thermodynamics-based variational learning strategy for non-equilibrium PDEs

    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

    2022

  10. [18]

    Statistical-Physics-Informed Neural Networks (Stat-PINNs): A machine learning strategy for coarse-graining dissipative dynamics

    Shenglin Huang, Zequn He, Nicolas Dirr, Johannes Zimmer, and Celia Reina. Statistical-Physics-Informed Neural Networks (Stat-PINNs): A machine learning strategy for coarse-graining dissipative dynamics. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 194:105908, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Harnessing fluctuations to discover dissipative evolution equations

    Xiaoguai Li, Nicolas Dirr, Peter Embacher, Johannes Zimmer, and Celia Reina. Harnessing fluctuations to discover dissipative evolution equations. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 131:240–251, 2019. 10

    2019

  12. [20]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Epistemic neural networks

    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

  14. [22]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles

    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

  15. [23]

    Bayesian learning for neural networks, volume 118

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

    2012

  16. [24]

    Gaussian processes in machine learning

    Carl Edward Rasmussen. Gaussian processes in machine learning. In Summer school on machine learning, pages 63–71. Springer, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Bayesian neural networks

    Igor Kononenko. Bayesian neural networks. Biological Cybernetics, 61(5):361–370, 1989

    1989

  18. [26]

    Bayesian data analysis

    Andrew Gelman, John B Carlin, Hal S Stern, and Donald B Rubin. Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1995

    1995

  19. [27]

    Uncertainty quantification and polynomial chaos techniques in computational fluid dynamics

    Habib N Najm. Uncertainty quantification and polynomial chaos techniques in computational fluid dynamics. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 41(1):35–52, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    Deep ensembles: A loss landscape perspective

    Stanislav Fort, Huiyi Hu, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. Deep ensembles: A loss landscape perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02757, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  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. In International 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

    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]

    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

  24. [32]

    Quantifying total uncertainty in physics- informed neural networks for solving forward and inverse stochastic problems

    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

  25. [33]

    Auto-encoding variational Bayes, 2013

    Diederik P Kingma, Max Welling, et al. Auto-encoding variational Bayes, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian J Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    PI-V AE: Physics-informed variational auto-encoder for stochastic differential equations

    Weiheng Zhong and Hadi Meidani. PI-V AE: Physics-informed variational auto-encoder for stochastic differential equations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 403:115664, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Physics-informed variational inference for uncertainty quantification of stochastic differential equations

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

    2023

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    PID-GAN: A GAN framework based on a physics-informed discriminator for uncertainty quantification with physics

    Arka Daw, Maruf Maruf, and Anuj Karpatne. PID-GAN: A GAN framework based on a physics-informed discriminator for uncertainty quantification with physics. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 237–247, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Wasserstein generative adversarial uncertainty quantification in physics- informed neural networks

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

    2022

  32. [40]

    Composite Bayesian optimization in function spaces using NEON—Neural Epistemic Operator Networks

    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

  33. [41]

    EVODMs: variational learning of PDEs for stochastic systems via diffusion models with quantified epistemic uncertainty

    Zequn He and Celia Reina. EVODMs: variational learning of PDEs for stochastic systems via diffusion models with quantified epistemic uncertainty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10588, 2025. 11

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    E-PINNs: Epistemic physics-informed neural networks

    Ashish S Nair, Bruno Jacob, Amanda A Howard, Jan Drgona, and Panos Stinis. E-PINNs: Epistemic physics-informed neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19333, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Tutorial on diffusion models for imaging and vision

    Stanley Chan et al. Tutorial on diffusion models for imaging and vision. Foundations and Trends® in Computer Graphics and Vision, 16(4):322–471, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    From predictions to decisions: The importance of joint predictive distributions

    Zheng Wen, Ian Osband, Chao Qin, Xiuyuan Lu, Morteza Ibrahimi, Vikranth Dwaracherla, Mohammad Asghari, and Benjamin Van Roy. From predictions to decisions: The importance of joint predictive distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09224, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The neural testbed: Evaluating joint predictions

    Ian Osband, Zheng Wen, Seyed Mohammad Asghari, Vikranth Dwaracherla, Xiuyuan Lu, Morteza Ibrahimi, Dieterich Lawson, Botao Hao, Brendan O’Donoghue, and Benjamin Van Roy. The neural testbed: Evaluating joint predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:125...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Derivation and validation of mesoscopic theories for diffusion of interacting molecules

    DG Vlachos and MA Katsoulakis. Derivation and validation of mesoscopic theories for diffusion of interacting molecules. Physical review letters, 85(18):3898, 2000

    2000

  41. [49]

    The curious case of convex neural networks

    Sarath Sivaprasad, Ankur Singh, Naresh Manwani, and Vineet Gandhi. The curious case of convex neural networks. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Research Track: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2021, Bilbao, Spain, September 13–17, 2021, Proceedings, Part...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks

    Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 249–256. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    When and why PINNs fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspective

    Sifan Wang, Xinling Yu, and Paris Perdikaris. When and why PINNs fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspective. Journal of Computational Physics, 449:110768, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Learning effective stochastic differential equations from microscopic simulations: Linking stochastic numerics to deep learning

    Felix Dietrich, Alexei Makeev, George Kevrekidis, Nikolaos Evangelou, Tom Bertalan, Sebastian Reich, and Ioannis G Kevrekidis. Learning effective stochastic differential equations from microscopic simulations: Linking stochastic numerics to deep learning. Chaos: An Interdiscip...

    2023

  46. [54]

    41HFfV0NtIe8IWM5ZdD2pkGyZyk=

    Alfred B Bortz, Malvin H Kalos, and Joel L Lebowitz. A new algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation of Ising spin systems. Journal of Computational physics, 17(1):10–18, 1975. A Model architecture and training details A.1 SPIEDiff model architecture The SPIEDiff architecture, depi...

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.