Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 105 references

BITS for GAPS: Bayesian Information-Theoretic Sampling for hierarchical GAussian Process Surrogates

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that selecting samples by the differential entropy of a Gaussian-mixture GP posterior—which folds hyperparameter uncertainty into the acquisition—increases expected information gain and predictive accuracy.

desk verdict A sensible packaging of known GMM-entropy acquisition ideas for hierarchical GP surrogates in chemical engineering, with a real empirical gap: no baselines and no validation that the entropy approximation preserves the true ranking. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.16815 v2 pith:WOOLLGOI submitted 2025-11-20 stat.ML cs.LG

Kyla D. Jones , Alexander W. Dowling This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LG MSC 62F1562K0560G15
keywords BayesianhierarchicalGaussianprocessinformation-theoreticexperimentaldesigndifferentialentropyacquisitionmixturepredictiveposteriorhybridmodelingsurrogatevapor-liquidequilibriumactivitycoefficients
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

BITS for GAPS is a sequential experimental-design method that picks the next input location by maximizing the differential entropy of a hierarchical Gaussian-process predictive posterior, rather than treating kernel hyperparameters as known. Because the predictive posterior is a uniformly weighted Gaussian mixture (one component per posterior hyperparameter sample), the paper derives two tractable entropy scores: a closed-form Taylor-series approximation and a lower bound from a Jensen argument. The claim is that carrying hyperparameter uncertainty into the acquisition function guides sampling toward regions where both data scarcity and model uncertainty are high, increasing expected information gain. In a vapor–liquid equilibrium hybrid model, where the surrogate predicts an activity coefficient and is embedded in extended Raoult's law, entropy-guided sampling lowers test error, corrects prior-induced bias, and supports a distillation design that matches the reference model's stage count.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the uniform-weight Gaussian mixture predictive posterior, p{f(x*)|y} ≈ (1/S) Σ p{f(x*)|y, θ^(s)}, with θ^(s) drawn from the hyperparameter posterior by MCMC; each mixture component is an ordinary fixed-hyperparameter GP predictive. The paper's two analytic tools operate on this mixture: Eq. (9), a Taylor expansion of the log mixture density around each component mean that turns the entropy integral into first-R central-moment terms of a Gaussian, and the Theorem's lower bound H_LB = −(1/S) Σ_s log{(1/S) Σ_{s'} ξ_{s,s'}}, where ξ_{s,s'} is the Gaussian overlap between components. These expressions convert maximum-entropy acquisition from an intractable integral into

What would settle it

On the paper's own case study, numerically compute the exact differential entropy of the Gaussian-mixture posterior at a fine grid of candidate (composition, temperature) points—by high-accuracy quadrature or large-sample Monte Carlo—and compare the ranking produced by Eq. (9) and by H_LB with the true ranking. If the approximate scores select a point that is not near the true entropy maximum, or if the two approximations disagree on which region is most informative, the acquisition's information-gain claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that information-theoretic design is still tractable when GP hyperparameters are uncertain. The predictive posterior at a candidate point is expanded as a finite uniform Gaussian mixture (Eq. 7), and its differential entropy—the proposed acquisition score—is approximated in closed form by Taylor-expanding the log mixture density about each component mean (Eq. 9) and bounded from below by H_LB, an average of pairwise Gaussian cross-overlap terms. Because the score depends on both component variances and the spread of component means, maximizing it naturally targets places where the data are thin and where the hyperparameter posterior disagree

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the approximate entropy estimators of Section 4.8—the Taylor truncation in Eq. (9) and the Jensen lower bound—rank candidate points in the same order as the true differential entropy of the Gaussian-mixture predictive posterior; the paper leaves the tightness of the lower bound to future work and does not benchmark either estimator against the exact GMM entropy. If the ranking is wrong, sampling is misdirected and the claimed gains in informat

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After ten BITS for GAPS iterations, test-set MAE and RMSE drop relative to iteration one and the surrogate's systematic underprediction from the ideal-mixing prior is largely corrected.
  • Entropy maxima migrate to under-sampled extremes of composition and temperature as sampling proceeds, consistent with the GP's interpolative uncertainty and with strong non-ideality in water-rich regions.
  • Embedding the surrogate in extended Raoult's law produces VLE phase envelopes whose bubble-point branch agrees with the reference model; the standard stage-stepping design then yields the same three-stage column as the reference, although local stage compositions shift.
  • The inferred kernel hyperparameters are unimodal, well-mixed (R-hat below 1.2), and physically interpretable: the activity coefficient varies more rapidly with composition than with temperature.
  • The closed-form entropy approximation and the lower bound make maximum-entropy acquisition computationally practical with 15 mixture components and derivative-based optimization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the uniform-GMM form arises whenever hyperparameters are MCMC-sampled, the same entropy acquisition should apply beyond serial hybrid models—for calibrating computer models, multi-fidelity surrogates, or any GP with priors on kernel parameters.
  • The lower bound H_LB is a pairwise-overlap sum: it grows when component means separate relative to component variances. A testable consequence is that BITS for GAPS will preferentially sample where the hyperparameter posterior implies divergent extrapolation, not merely where the marginal predictive variance is large.
  • The paper does not compare Eq. (9) or H_LB against the true GMM entropy; an immediate safeguard for deployment is a calibration check on a low-dimensional grid, because mis-ranked entropy estimates would silently misdirect sampling even if the final surrogate looks good.
  • Because the case study's dew-point deviation is attributed to the log transform of large activity coefficients, a warped-GP or scale-aware variant of the same acquisition is a natural next test: it would keep hyperparameter uncertainty in the loop while removing the reported bias.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes BITS for GAPS, a sequential design framework for hierarchical Gaussian process surrogates. The predictive posterior is approximated as a uniformly weighted Gaussian mixture obtained by propagating MCMC samples of the kernel hyperparameters (Eq. (7)). The acquisition function selects the next input by maximizing an estimate of the differential entropy of this mixture. The authors present a truncated Taylor approximation (Eq. (9)) and a Jensen lower bound (Theorem) for this entropy, and demonstrate the workflow on a vapor-liquid equilibrium case study in which a GP surrogate for the PrOH activity coefficient is embedded in extended Raoult's law and used for distillation column design. The paper claims that the approach increases expected information gain and predictive accuracy relative to standard methods.

Significance. The core mathematical identities appear correct: Eqs. (8a)-(8b) are the standard GMM moments, and the Theorem's lower bound follows from Jensen's inequality applied componentwise. If the entropy estimate preserved the true entropy ranking over candidate inputs, the proposed acquisition could offer a tractable, uncertainty-aware alternative for hybrid modeling. The case study is well-motivated and the downstream distillation analysis gives a useful application template. However, the paper's empirical claims are not currently supported: the experiments lack any baseline comparator, and the entropy estimator used in the acquisition is not validated or even fully specified. The significance of the paper cannot be assessed until these gaps are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.4 / Abstract] The abstract claims 'using BITS for GAPS increases expected information gain and predictive accuracy,' but the experimental section reports only the behavior of the proposed acquisition in isolation. Figures 3–5 show that the selected points move to high-entropy regions and that test error decreases over iterations, but there is no comparison to a baseline such as random sampling, space-filling design, a standard GP with MAP hyperparameters, or an existing acquisition function (e.g., pure uncertainty sampling). Without a control, the observed improvements could reflect the mere addition of training data. Please add baselines and report results over multiple independent runs.
  2. [§4.8 Eq. (9), Theorem; §5.3] The acquisition maximizes an estimate of the GMM entropy. The paper offers two estimates: the Taylor expansion Eq. (9) truncated at order R, and the Jensen lower bound H_LB. The implementation states only 'approximate entropy using 15 Gaussian mixtures,' without specifying which estimator, the value of R, or how S=15 was selected. Neither estimate is validated against an accurate numerical evaluation of the true GMM entropy, nor is the rank-correlation between the estimate and the true entropy over the design space reported. If the estimator mis-ranks candidate points, the acquisition may select points where the approximation is loose rather than genuinely informative, undermining the information-theoretic claim. State the estimator and R, and include a validation of the approximation and ranking.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (2); abstract] The acquisition solves max_{x*} H{f(x*)|y}, the entropy of the current predictive distribution at a candidate point. This is uncertainty sampling, not expected information gain. Expected information gain is typically the mutual information between the hypothetical observation at x* and the model or latent function; it involves an expectation over possible observations. The abstract's claim that the method 'quantifies expected information gain from candidate input locations' is therefore not supported by the acquisition used. Please either derive the relationship between the entropy objective and expected information gain, or revise the claims to refer to entropy-based uncertainty sampling.
  4. [§5.3, jitter] The entropy field and hence the acquisition decisions are directly shaped by a hand-set jitter term, chosen to 'yield an uncertainty band approximately 20% of the average activity coefficient.' This jitter is not inferred from data, and no sensitivity analysis is presented. Because the acquisition maximizes entropy, a larger jitter will inflate predictive variances and can change the selected points. The paper should either infer the jitter as a noise hyperparameter or demonstrate robustness to this choice over a range of values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.8 Theorem proof] The proof states 'Since -log f(x*)|y is concave' — the function -log(·) is convex. The inequality direction is correct, but the wording should be fixed. Also, the theorem is described as a lower bound of Eq. (9), while the proof bounds the true entropy; clarify the statement.
  2. [§4.7] 'Since GMMs do not admit closed-form expressions for their quantiles, the variance expression in Eq. (8b) cannot be applied' is incorrect: Eq. (8b) is the law of total variance and gives the mixture variance in closed form. Quantiles are needed for credible intervals, but the variance expression itself remains valid.
  3. [§5.3] The sentence 'We terminate BITS for GAPS once the RMSE and MAE between test and train sets' is incomplete; specify the stopping criterion (e.g., threshold or max iterations).
  4. [§5.2] Eq. (11) is said to be 'evaluated with random samples the surrogate posterior'; this is missing a preposition and lacks detail on how the integral over ln γ1 is computed from GP posterior samples (e.g., quadrature vs. Monte Carlo along the composition path). Please clarify.
  5. [§5.4.2] The sentence 'a GP is an interpolative method, so information (entropy) would be low (high) at the extremes of the design space' is unclear; entropy is generally high far from data, so the parenthetical notation is confusing.
  6. [Introduction/§4.8] The abstract and introduction refer to a 'closed-form expression for the differential entropy'; since Eq. (9) is a truncated approximation, 'closed-form approximation' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entropy acquisition and lower bound are derived from Bayes/MCMC and Jensen, and validation is external to the fitted surrogate.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The predictive posterior in Eq. (7) is the standard MCMC approximation of the hierarchical GP posterior (citing Lalchand and Rasmussen [78], an external source), and the acquisition maximizes the differential entropy of that posterior—an active-learning objective, not a prediction of the Wilson benchmark. Eq. (9) is Huber et al.'s Taylor-series entropy approximation applied to the GMM, and the Theorem's H_LB follows from Jensen's inequality on the exact entropy expression, so it is a genuine bound rather than a restatement of a fitted quantity (the proof's 'concave' wording is a typo; the direction used is the convex-Jensen direction). The claimed accuracy gains are validated against held-out Wilson-model data (Figures 5-7), an independent simulator. Several references include Dowling (refs. 4, 13, 31, 37-39, 51, 58), but these support background, literature motivation, or the scarcity claim only; none enters the derivation of Eq. (7), Eq. (9), or the Theorem. The hand-set jitter in §5.3 is a stated prior modeling choice, not a parameter fitted to the target data, so it does not make predictions fitted. The manuscript itself flags one limitation: 'Further theoretical work can establish the tightness of the GMM entropy acquisition lower bound' (Section 6), and the ranking fidelity of Eq. (9) against true GMM entropy is not validated in §4.8/§5.3. These are correctness/validation risks, not circularity—no prediction in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's load-bearing elements are standard: GP predictive equations (5a)–(5b), MCMC approximation of the hyperparameter posterior, and the uniform-weight GMM form of the predictive posterior (Eq. 7, from Lalchand–Rasmussen). The only assumption specific to this paper's acquisition claim is that Eq. (9) or the Jensen lower bound ranks candidates like the true mixture entropy — this is never validated. Thermodynamic assumptions (Gibbs–Duhem, Wilson simulator) support the case study but not the method itself. No invented entities. Free parameters are dominated by the hand-set jitter, which directly controls the variance/entropy field driving acquisition.

free parameters (4)
  • Jitter (nugget) variance = Chosen by hand to yield an uncertainty band ~20% of the average activity coefficient
    §5.3: 'We choose the jitter to yield an uncertainty band approximately 20% of the average activity coefficient.' Predictive variance — and therefore the entropy acquisition — is directly inflated by this number.
  • Hyperprior parameters = Gamma(2,1) for θ1, Uniform(0.1,50) for θ2, Gamma(4,2) for θ3
    §5.3, Table 1: chosen by the modeler to encode smoothness/amplitude beliefs; the acquisition surface inherits them.
  • Number of mixture components S in acquisition = 15
    §5.3: 'We approximate entropy using 15 Gaussian mixtures' — a truncation of the MCMC posterior; smaller S increases acquisition-surface noise.
  • Gibbs–Duhem integration cutoff ε = 10^-4
    §5.2: truncates the divergence at z1 → 1; affects the inferred γ_H2O near the PrOH-rich (H2O-dilute) limit.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The MCMC chain samples θ^(s) approximate the true hyperparameter posterior p(θ|y) well enough for uniform-weight mixture predictions (Eq. 7)
    §4.6; convergence assessed only via R-hat < 1.2 (loose by modern standards) with 4 × 2,000 retained samples.
  • domain assumption Predictive posterior is a uniformly weighted GMM (1/S per component)
    §4.6 Eq. (7), carried over from Lalchand–Rasmussen [78]; unequal weights or correlated samples would invalidate Eqs. (8)–(9).
  • standard math Standard GP predictive equations (5a)–(5b) with Gaussian noise
    §4.4, Rasmussen & Williams [59].
  • standard math −log is convex, so Jensen gives −log E[·] ≤ E[−log ·]
    §4.8 Theorem proof; the paper mislabels −log as concave. The theorem's direction is the convex one, so the bound stands.
  • domain assumption Gibbs–Duhem integral (Eq. 11) yields γ_H2O from the γ_PrOH surrogate
    §5.2; relies on standard thermodynamics plus the truncation at z1 = 1 − ε.
  • domain assumption Wilson model (Clapeyron.jl) is a valid ground-truth simulator for H2O–PrOH VLE
    §5.3; all training and validation data are generated from it — no experimental data are involved.
  • ad hoc to paper The GMM entropy approximation Eq. (9) (Taylor truncation at order R) or the Jensen lower bound preserves the entropy ranking of candidate points
    §4.8 — this is the load-bearing acquisition premise; R is never specified and the approximation is never validated against the true mixture entropy.
  • domain assumption Homoskedastic Gaussian observation noise
    §4.4: 'adopted here for simplicity.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BITS for GAPS: Bayesian Information-Theoretic Sampling for hierarchical GAussian Process Surrogates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WOOLLGOI

@misc{pith2026251116815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BITS for GAPS: Bayesian Information-Theoretic Sampling for hierarchical GAussian Process Surrogates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WOOLLGOI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.16815}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Bayesian Information-Theoretic Sampling for hierarchical GAussian Process Surrogates (BITS for GAPS), a framework enabling information-theoretic experimental design of Gaussian process-based surrogate models. Unlike standard methods, which use fixed or point-estimated hyperparameters in acquisition functions, our approach propagates hyperparameter uncertainty into the sampling criterion through Bayesian hierarchical modeling. In this framework, a latent function receives a Gaussian process prior, while hyperparameters are assigned additional priors to capture the modeler's knowledge of the governing physical phenomena. Consequently, the acquisition function incorporates uncertainties from both the latent function and its hyperparameters, ensuring that sampling is guided by both data scarcity and model uncertainty. We further establish theoretical results in this context: a closed-form approximation and a lower bound of the posterior differential entropy. We demonstrate the framework's utility for hybrid modeling with a vapor-liquid equilibrium case study. Specifically, we build a surrogate model for latent activity coefficients in a binary mixture. We construct a hybrid model by embedding the surrogate into an extended form of Raoult's law. This hybrid model then informs distillation design. This case study shows how partial physical knowledge can be translated into a hierarchical Gaussian process surrogate. It also shows that using BITS for GAPS increases expected information gain and predictive accuracy by targeting high-uncertainty regions of the Wilson activity model. Overall, BITS for GAPS is a generalized uncertainty-aware framework for adaptive data acquisition in complex physical systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.16815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the BITS for GAPS framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Training and testing data for the activity coefficient surrogate model. (a) Latin hypercube [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior differential entropy, H{f(x∗) | y}, as a function of temperature, T [K], and mole fraction of PrOH, zPrOH [ ], at iterations 1-6 (a-f). White circles denote previously sampled (training) points, and red squares denote the locations selected by the optimizer as having maximum posterior entropy. The red squares are sampled and augmented into the training data for subsequent iterations. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maximum entropy and minimum information over successive iterations of BITS for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surrogate model performance at early and late stages of BITS for GAPS. Left column [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the activity coefficient surrogate surface over BITS for GAPS iterations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Isotherms of the activity coefficient models. Panels (a)–(d) correspond to iterations 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: VLE phase diagrams for H2O–PrOH system. (a) Dew point (purple) and bubble point (pink) temperature, T [K], vs. overall mole fraction of PrOH, zPrOH [ ]. (b) Vapor mole fraction of PrOH, z (v) PrOH [ ], vs. liquid mole fraction of PrOH, z (ℓ) PrOH [ ], with a parity lin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: McCabe–Thiele diagrams for distillation design using (a) the ground-truth Wilson activity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Trace plots for latent hyperparameters: (a) kernel variance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Marginal posterior distributions of the latent hyperparameters: (a) kernel variance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Pairwise marginal distributions of the latent hyperparameters: (a) mole fraction length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. C. Psichogios, L. H. Ungar, A hybrid neural network-first principles approach to process modeling, AIChE Journal 38 (1992) 1499–1511

    1992

  2. [2]

    von Stosch, R

    M. von Stosch, R. Oliveira, J. Peres, S. Feyo de Azevedo, Hybrid semi- parametric modeling in process systems engineering: Past, present and future, Computers & Chemical Engineering 60 (2014) 86–101. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135413002639. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.08.008

    doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.08.008 2014

  3. [3]

    Sansana, M

    J. Sansana, M. N. Joswiak, I. Castillo, Z. Wang, R. Rendall, L. H. Chiang, M. S. Reis, Recent trends on hybrid modeling for Industry 4.0, Computers & Chemical Engineering 151 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2021.107365

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    D. T. Agi, K. D. Jones, M. J. Watson, H. G. Lynch, M. Dougher, X. Chen, M. N. Carlozo, A. W. Dowling, Computational toolkits for model- based design and optimization, Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 43 (2024). URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2211339823000989. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2023.100994

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Narayanan, M

    H. Narayanan, M. Luna, M. Sokolov, P. Arosio, A. Butté, M. Mor- bidelli, Hybrid models based on machine learning and an increas- ing degree of process knowledge: Application to capture chromatographic step, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 60 (2021) 10466– 10478. URL:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01317. doi:10.1021/ acs.iecr.1c01317.arXiv:...

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01317 2021

  6. [6]

    Sitapure, J

    N. Sitapure, J. Sang-Il Kwon, Introducing hybrid modeling with time-series- transformers: A comparative study of series and parallel approach in batch crystallization, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 62 (2023) 21278– 21291. URL:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02624. doi:10.1021/ acs.iecr.3c02624.arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02624

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02624 2023

  7. [7]

    Polak, M

    J. Polak, M. von Stosch, M. Sokolov, L. Piccioni, A. Streit, B. Schenkel, B. Guelat, Hybrid modeling supported development of an indus- trial small-molecule flow chemistry process, Computers & Chemical Engineering 170 (2023) 108127. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0098135422004604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compchemeng.2022.108127. 36

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    H. Kay, F. Vega-Ramon, R. Gallen, E. H. Stitt, D. Zhang, Developing a hybrid modeling framework for enhanced prediction in chemical reaction kinetics, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 64 (2025) 16027– 16038. URL:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5c01597. doi:10.1021/ acs.iecr.5c01597.arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5c01597

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.5c01597 2025

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    L. T. Biegler, Y. dong Lang, W. Lin, Multi-scale optimization for pro- cess systems engineering, Computers & Chemical Engineering 60 (2014) 17–30. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0098135413002299. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013. 07.009

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    S. I. Ngo, Y.-I. Lim, Multiscale eulerian cfd of chemical processes: A review, ChemEngineering 4 (2020). URL:https://www.mdpi.com/2305-7084/4/2/23. doi:10.3390/chemengineering4020023

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Kieckhefen, S

    P. Kieckhefen, S. Pietsch, M. Dosta, S. Heinrich, Possibilities and lim- its of computational fluid dynamics–discrete element method simulations in process engineering: A review of recent advancements and future trends, Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 11...

    2020

  4. [12]

    L. R. Timmerman, S. Kumar, P. Suryanarayana, A. J. Medford, Overcoming the chemical complexity bottleneck in on-the-fly machine learned molecular dynam- ics simulations, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 20 (2024) 5788– 5795.URL:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.4c0047...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Agbodekhe, M

    B. Agbodekhe, M. Carlozo, D. Abranches, K. Jones, A. Dowling, E. Mag- inn, Enhanced thermophysical property prediction with uncertainty quantifi- cation using group contribution–gaussian process regression, ChemRxiv (2025). URL:https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-n9gpr-v2. ...

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Banerjee, S

    I. Banerjee, S. Pal, S. Maiti, Computationally efficient black- box modeling for feasibility analysis, Computers & Chemical En- gineering 34 (2010) 1515–1521. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0098135410000591. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 37 j.compchemen...

    2010

  7. [15]

    N. S. Eyke, W. H. Green, K. F. Jensen, Iterative experimental design based on active machine learning reduces the experimental burden associated with reaction screening, Reaction Chemistry & Engineering 5 (2020) 1963–1972. URL:https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RE00232A. doi:10.1039/D0RE00232A

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    A. M. Schweidtmann, D. Zhang, M. von Stosch, A review and perspective on hybrid modeling methodologies, Digital Chemical Engineering 10 (2024) 100136. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2772508123000546. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dche.2023.100136

    2024

  9. [17]

    C. L. Gargalo, A. A. Malanca, A. R. N. Aouichaoui, J. K. Huusom, K. V. Gernaey, Navigating industry 4.0 and 5.0: the role of hybrid modelling in (bio)chemical engineering’s digital transition, Frontiers in Chemical En- gineering Volume 6 - 2024 (2024). URL:https://www.frontier...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Barberi, C

    G. Barberi, C. Giacopuzzi, P. Facco, Bioprocess feeding optimization through In Silicodynamic experiments and hybrid digital models—a proof of concept, Frontiers in Chemical Engineering 6 (2024) 1456402. URL:https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fceng.2024.1456402. doi:10.3389/fceng.2024.1456402

    2024

  11. [19]

    Daoutidis, J

    P. Daoutidis, J. H. Lee, S. Rangarajan, L. Chiang, B. Gopaluni, A. M. Schweidtmann, I. Harjunkoski, M. Mercangöz, A. Mesbah, F. Boukouvala, F. V. Lima, A. del Rio Chanona, C. Georgakis, Machine learning in pro- cess systems engineering: Challenges and opportunities, Computers ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    S. P. Asprey, S. Macchietto, Designing robust optimal dynamic experiments, Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 545–556. URL:https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0959-1524(01)00020-8. doi:10.1016/S0959-1524(01)00020-8

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    Franceschini, S

    G. Franceschini, S. Macchietto, Model-based design of experiments for param- eter precision: State of the art, Chemical Engineering Science 63 (2008) 4846– 38

    2008

  14. [22]

    Greenhill, S

    S. Greenhill, S. Rana, S. Gupta, P. Vellanki, S. Venkatesh, Bayesian Opti- mization for Adaptive Experimental Design: A Review, IEEE Access 8 (2020). doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966228

    2020

  15. [23]

    Močkus, On bayesian methods for seeking the extremum, in: G

    J. Močkus, On bayesian methods for seeking the extremum, in: G. I. Marchuk (Ed.), Optimization Techniques: IFIP Technical Conference, Novosibirsk, July 1–7, 1974, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1975, pp. 400–404

    1974

  16. [24]

    Brochu, V

    E. Brochu, V. M. Cora, N. de Freitas, A tutorial on bayesian optimization of expensive cost functions, with application to active user modeling and hierarchi- cal reinforcement learning, 2010. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.2599. arXiv:1012.2599

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mockus, Bayesian Approach to Global Optimization: Theory and Appli- cations, Mathematics and its Applications, Springer Netherlands, 2012

    J. Mockus, Bayesian Approach to Global Optimization: Theory and Appli- cations, Mathematics and its Applications, Springer Netherlands, 2012. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=VuKoCAAAQBAJ

    2012

  18. [26]

    Snoek, H

    J. Snoek, H. Larochelle, R. P. Adams, Practical bayesian optimization of ma- chine learning algorithms, 2012. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.2944. arXiv:1206.2944

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Shahriari, K

    B. Shahriari, K. Swersky, Z. Wang, R. P. Adams, N. de Freitas, Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization, Proceedings of the IEEE 104 (2016) 148–175. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218

    2016

  20. [28]

    Y. Wu, A. Walsh, A. M. Ganose, Race to the bottom: Bayesian optimisation for chemical problems, Digital Discovery 3 (2024) 1086–1100. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1039/D3DD00234A. doi:10.1039/D3DD00234A

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    F. V. Lima, Y. Tian, H. E. Durand, J. A. Paulson, L. T. Biegler, In- novations in chemical process control: challenges and opportunities, Cur- rent Opinion in Chemical Engineering 48 (2025) 101148. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211339825000590. doi:h...

    2025

  22. [30]

    R. Shen, G. Luo, A. Su, Bayesian optimization for chemical synthesis in the era of artificial intelligence: Advances and applications, Processes 13 (2025) 2687. URL:https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13092687. doi:10.3390/pr13092687. 39

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    M. N. Carlozo, K. Wang, A. W. Dowling, Bayesian optimiza- tion methods for nonlinear model calibration, Industrial & Engi- neering Chemistry Research 64 (2025) 18277–18297. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c03468. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.4c03468. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.10...

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    M. C. Kennedy, A. O’Hagan, Bayesian calibration of computer models, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 63 (2001) 425–464. URL:https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1111/1467-9868.00294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.0...

    2001

  25. [33]

    Higdon, J

    D. Higdon, J. Gattiker, B. Williams, M. Rightley, Computer model calibration using high-dimensional output, Journal of the American Statistical Association 103 (2008) 570–583. URL:https://doi.org/10.1198/016214507000000888. doi:10.1198/016214507000000888

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    Sauer, R

    A. Sauer, R. B. Gramacy, D. Higdon, Active learning for deep gaus- sian process surrogates, 2021. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.08015. arXiv:2012.08015

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    doi:10.1162/neco.1992.4.4.590

    D.J.C.MacKay, Information-basedobjectivefunctionsforactivedataselection, Neural Computation 4 (1992) 590–604. doi:10.1162/neco.1992.4.4.590

    1992 doi

  28. [36]

    Hennig, C

    P. Hennig, C. J. Schuler, Entropy search for information-efficient global opti- mization, 2011. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1217.arXiv:1112.1217

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    K.Wang, A.W.Dowling, Bayesianoptimizationforchemicalproductsandfunc- tional materials, Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 36 (2022) 100728

    2022

  30. [38]

    J. Wang, A. W. Dowling, Pyomo.DOE: An open-source package for model- based design of experiments in Python, AIChE Journal (2022). doi:10.1002/ aic.17813

    2022

  31. [39]

    K. Wang, A. W. Dowling, Bayesian optimization for chemical products and functional materials, Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 36 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.coche.2021.100728

    2022

  32. [40]

    Mahboubi, J

    N. Mahboubi, J. Xie, B. Huang, Point-by-point transfer learning for bayesian optimization: An accelerated search strategy, Computers & Chem- ical Engineering 194 (2025) 108952. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/ 40 science/article/pii/S0098135424003703. doi:https://doi.org/10....

    2025

  33. [41]

    K. Lee, J. M. Lee, Optimization of fischer–tropsch microchannel reactor using computational fluid dynamics and enveloped bayesian optimization, Computers & Chemical Engineering 185 (2024) 108658. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135424000760. doi:htt...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Savage, E

    T. Savage, E. A. del Rio Chanona, Human-algorithm collaborative bayesian optimization for engineering systems, Computers & Chemical Engineering 189 (2024) 108810. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S009813542400228X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compcheme...

    2024

  35. [43]

    J. Winz, F. Fromme, S. Engell, Bayesian optimization of gray-box pro- cess models using a modified upper confidence bound acquisition function, Computers & Chemical Engineering 194 (2025) 108976. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135424003946. doi:htt...

    2025

  36. [44]

    J. A. Paulson, C. Lu, Cobalt: Constrained bayesian optimization of com- putationally expensive grey-box models exploiting derivative information, Computers & Chemical Engineering 160 (2022) 107700. URL:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135422000436. doi:1...

    2022

  37. [45]

    C. Lu, J. A. Paulson, No-regret constrained bayesian optimization of noisy and expensive hybrid models using differentiable quantile function approxima- tions, Journal of Process Control 131 (2023) 103085. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095915242300172...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Lu, W.-S

    Y.-A. Lu, W.-S. Hu, J. A. Paulson, Q. Zhang, Bo4io: A bayesian op- timization approach to inverse optimization with uncertainty quantification, Computers & Chemical Engineering 192 (2025) 108859. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135424002771. doi:htt...

    2025

  39. [47]

    M. J. Begall, A. M. Schweidtmann, A. Mhamdi, A. Mitsos, Geometry op- timization of a continuous millireactor via CFD and Bayesian optimization, 41 Computers & Chemical Engineering 171 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng. 2023.108140

    2023

  40. [48]

    X. D. J. Nguyen, Y. Liu, Methodology for hyperparameter tuning of deep neural networks for efficient and accurate molecular property prediction, Computers & Chemical Engineering 193 (2025) 108928. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135424003466. doi:ht...

    2025

  41. [49]

    H. E. Byun, B. Kim, J. H. Lee, Multi-step lookahead Bayesian optimization with active learning using reinforcement learning and its application to data- driven batch-to-batch optimization, Computers & Chemical Engineering 167 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107987

    2022

  42. [50]

    Y. Qiu, Z. Xu, J. Zhao, C. Song, X. Zhu, Data-driven controller parameters on- line tuning method based on model-inherited trust region bayesian optimization, Computers & Chemical Engineering 199 (2025) 109141. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135425...

    2025

  43. [51]

    Cheng, K

    Z. Cheng, K. Wang, A. M. Tanvir, W. Shang, T. Luo, Y. Zhang, A. W. Dowling, D. B. Go, Bayesian optimization of low-temperature nonthermal plasma jet sintering of nanoinks, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 16 (2024) 46897–46908. URL:https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.4c07936. doi...

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Q. Ke, C. M. Simon, Guidelines for multi-fidelity bayesian optimization of molecules and materials, Nature Computational Science 5 (2025) 518–

    2025

  45. [53]

    T. Ye, M. Dong, J. Long, Y. Zheng, Y. Liang, J. Lu, Multi-objective mod- eling of boiler combustion based on feature fusion and Bayesian optimization, Computers & Chemical Engineering 165 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng. 2022.107913

    2022

  46. [54]

    L. Cao, D. Russo, E. Matthews, A. Lapkin, D. Woods, Computer-aided design of formulated products: A bridge design of experiments for ingredient selection, Computers & Chemical Engineering 169 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng. 2022.108083. 42

    2023

  47. [55]

    J. P. Folch, R. M. Lee, B. Shafei, D. Walz, C. Tsay, M. van der Wilk, R. Mis- ener, Combining multi-fidelity modelling and asynchronous batch Bayesian Op- timization, Computers & Chemical Engineering 172 (2023). doi:10.1016/j. compchemeng.2023.108194

    2023

  48. [56]

    L. D. González, V. M. Zavala, New paradigms for exploiting parallel experi- mentsinBayesianoptimization, Computers&ChemicalEngineering170(2023). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.108110

    2023

  49. [57]

    J. P. Coutinho, L. O. Santos, M. S. Reis, Bayesian Optimization for automatic tuning of digital multi-loop PID controllers, Computers & Chemical Engineering 173 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108211

    2023

  50. [58]

    E. A. Eugene, K. D. Jones, X. Gao, J. Wang, A. W. Dowling, Learning and optimization under epistemic uncertainty with bayesian hybrid models, Computers & Chemical Engineering 179 (2023) 108430. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135423003009. doi:https...

    2023

  51. [59]

    C. E. Rasmussen, C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, MIT Press, 2006

    2006

  52. [60]

    D.MacKay, InformationTheory, InferenceandLearningAlgorithms, Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  53. [61]

    Wasserman, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference, SpringerTextsinStatistics, Springer, 2004.URL:https://books.google.com/ books?id=th3fbFI1DaMC

    L. Wasserman, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference, SpringerTextsinStatistics, Springer, 2004.URL:https://books.google.com/ books?id=th3fbFI1DaMC

    2004

  54. [62]

    Brooks, A

    S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, X.-L. Meng (Eds.), Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, 1st ed., Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011. doi:10.1201/b10905

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing ma- chines, The Journal of Chemical Physics 21 (1953) 1087–1092. URL:https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114. doi:10.1063/1.1699114. arXiv:https://pubs.aip.or...

    1953 doi

  56. [64]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications, Biometrika 57 (1970) 97–109. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.1.97. doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97. arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article-pdf/57/1/97/23940249/57-1-97.pdf. 43

    1970 doi

  57. [65]

    Geman, D

    S. Geman, D. Geman, Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence PAMI-6 (1984) 721–741. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.1984.4767596

    1984

  58. [66]

    A. E. Gelfand, A. F. M. Smith, Sampling-based approaches to calculat- ing marginal densities, Journal of the American Statistical Association 85 (1990) 398–409. URL:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 1080/01621459.1990.10476213. doi:10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213. arXiv:h...

    1990

  59. [67]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, D. Roweth, Hybrid monte carlo, Physics Letters B 195 (1987) 216–222. URL:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026938791197X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-X

    1987

  60. [68]

    R. M. Neal, Monte Carlo Implementation, Springer New York, New York, NY, 1996, pp. 55–98. URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0745-0_3. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0745-0\_3

    1996 doi

  61. [69]

    Gelman, D

    A. Gelman, D. Lee, J. Guo, Stan: A probabilistic programming language for bayesian inference and optimization, Journal of Edu- cational and Behavioral Statistics 40 (2015) 530–543. URL:https: //doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606113. doi:10.3102/1076998615606113. arXiv:https://doi.o...

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    J. A. Vrugt, C. ter Braak, C. Diks, B. A. Robinson, J. M. Hyman, D. Higdon, Accelerating markov chain monte carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling, International Journal of Nonlinear SciencesandNumericalSimulation10(2009)273–...

    2009 doi

  63. [71]

    M. D. Hoffman, A. Gelman, The no-u-turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in hamiltonian monte carlo, Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 (2014) 1593–1623. URL:http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/hoffman14a.html

    2014

  64. [72]

    Andrieu, J

    C. Andrieu, J. Thoms, A tutorial on adaptive mcmc, Statistics and Com- puting (2008). URL:https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jordan/sail/ readings/andrieu-thoms.pdf

    2008

  65. [73]

    Hoffman, A

    M. Hoffman, A. Radul, P. Sountsov, An adaptive mcmc scheme for setting trajectory lengths in hamiltonian monte carlo, 2020. In preparation. 44

    2020

  66. [74]

    R. B. Gramacy, Surrogates: Gaussian Process Modeling, Design, and Optimiza- tion for the Applied Sciences, illustrated ed., CRC Press, 2020

    2020

  67. [75]

    M. G. Genton, Classes of kernels for machine learning: a statistics perspective, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2 (2002) 299–312

    2002

  68. [76]

    X. Shi, D. Jiang, W. Qian, Y. Liang, Application of the gaus- sian process regression method based on a combined kernel func- tion in engine performance prediction, ACS Omega 7 (2022) 41732– 41743. URL:https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c05952. doi:10.1021/ acsomega.2c05952.arX...

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    Porcu, M

    E. Porcu, M. Bevilacqua, R. Schaback, C. J. Oates, The matérn model: A journey through statistics, numerical analysis and machine learning, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.02759.arXiv:2303.02759

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Lalchand, C

    V. Lalchand, C. E. Rasmussen, Approximate inference for fully bayesian gaussian process regression, in: C. Zhang, F. Ruiz, T. Bui, A. B. Dieng, D. Liang (Eds.), Proceedings of The 2nd Symposium on Advances in Approx- imate Bayesian Inference, volume 118 ofProceedings of Machin...

    2020

  71. [79]

    M. F. Huber, T. Bailey, H. Durrant-Whyte, U. D. Hanebeck, On entropy ap- proximation for gaussian mixture random vectors, in: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems, 2008, pp. 181–188. doi:10.1109/MFI.2008.4648062

    2008

  72. [80]

    C. Geankoplis, Transport Processes and Separation Process Principles: (in- cludes Unit Operations), Prentice Hall Professional technical reference, Pren- ticeHallProfessionalTechnicalReference, 2003.URL:https://books.google. com/books?id=kgDfnQEACAAJ

    2003

  73. [81]

    Petrucci, General Chemistry: Principles and Modern Applications, General chemistry, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007

    R. Petrucci, General Chemistry: Principles and Modern Applications, General chemistry, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007

    2007

  74. [82]

    G. M. Wilson, Vapor-liquid equilibrium. xi. a new expression for the ex- cess free energy of mixing, Journal of the American Chemical Society 86 (1964) 127–130. URL:https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01056a002. doi:10.1021/ ja01056a002.arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01056a002. 45

    1964 doi

  75. [83]

    Renon, J

    H. Renon, J. M. Prausnitz, Local compositions in thermodynamic ex- cess functions for liquid mixtures, AIChE Journal 14 (1968) 135–

    1968

  76. [84]

    D. S. Abrams, J. M. Prausnitz, Statistical thermodynamics of liq- uid mixtures: A new expression for the excess gibbs energy of partly or completely miscible systems, AIChE Journal 21 (1975) 116–

    1975

  77. [85]

    Maurer, J

    G. Maurer, J. Prausnitz, On the derivation and extension of the uni- quac equation, Fluid Phase Equilibria 2 (1978) 91–99. URL:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037838127885002X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3812(78)85002-X

    1978

  78. [86]

    Kohns, M

    M. Kohns, M. Horsch, H. Hasse, Activity coefficients from molecular simulations using the opas method, The Journal of Chemical Physics 147 (2017) 144108

    2017

  79. [87]

    G. D. Robny, Lecture 18: The gibbs–duhem equation,https: //faculty.washington.edu/gdrobny/Lecture452_18_14_Gibbs_Duhem.pdf,

  80. [88]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cour- napeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, İ. Polat, Y. Fen...

    2020

  81. [89]

    P. J. Walker, H.-W. Yew, A. Riedemann, Clapeyron.jl: An extensible, open- source fluid thermodynamics toolkit, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 61 (2022) 7130–7153. URL:https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c00326. doi:doi/10. 1021/acs.iecr.2c00326. 46

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    Ac- cessed: 2025-07-10; generated May 13, 2025

    JuliaPy community, Juliacall: The python module for calling julia from python, https://juliapy.github.io/PythonCall.jl/stable/juliacall/, 2025. Ac- cessed: 2025-07-10; generated May 13, 2025

    2025

  83. [91]

    A. G. d. G. Matthews, M. van der Wilk, T. Nickson, K. Fujii, A. Boukouvalas, P. León-Villagrá, Z. Ghahramani, J. Hensman, GPflow: A Gaussian process library using TensorFlow, Journal of Machine Learning Research 18 (2017) 1–6. URL:http://jmlr.org/papers/v18/16-537.html

    2017

  84. [92]

    van der Wilk, V

    M. van der Wilk, V. Dutordoir, S. John, A. Artemev, V. Adam, J. Hens- man, A framework for interdomain and multioutput Gaussian processes, arXiv:2003.01115 (2020). URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.01115

    2003 arXiv

  85. [93]

    R. W. Rousseau, D. L. Ashcraft, E. M. Schoenborn, Salt effect in vapor-liquid equilibria: Correlation of alcohol-, water-, salt systems, AIChE Journal 18 (1972) 825–829. URL:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/aic.690180427. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.6...

    1972 doi

  86. [94]

    J. V. Dillon, I. Langmore, D. Tran, E. Brevdo, S. Vasudevan, D. Moore, B. Pat- ton, A. Alemi, M. Hoffman, R. A. Saurous, Tensorflow distributions, 2017. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10604.arXiv:1711.10604

    2017 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Gelman, D

    A. Gelman, D. B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Statistical science 7 (1992) 457–472

    1992

  88. [96]

    R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, C. Zhu, A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 16 (1995) 1190–1208. URL:https://doi.org/10.1137/0916069. doi:10.1137/0916069. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/0916069

    1995 doi

  89. [97]

    C. Zhu, R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, Algorithm 778: L-bfgs-b: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 23 (1997) 550–560. URL:https://doi.org/10.1145/279232.279236. doi:10.1145/279232.279236

    1997

  90. [98]

    P. S. Murti, M. van Winkle, Vapor-liquid equilibria for binary systems of methanol, ethyl alcohol, 1-propanol, and 2-propanol with ethyl acetate and 1- propanol-water, Chemical Engineering Series 3 (1958) 72–81

    1958

  91. [99]

    R. H. Perry, C. H. Chilton, Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 5 ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973. 47 Supplementary Information BITS for GAPS: Bayesian Information-Theoretic Sampling for hierarchical GAussian Process Surrogates Kyla D. Jones, Alexander W. Dowling1 Department of Che...

    1973

  92. [128]

    1002/aic.690210115

    URL:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/aic.690210115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690210115. arXiv:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aic.690210115

    doi

  93. [144]

    1002/aic.690140124

    URL:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/aic.690140124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690140124. arXiv:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aic.690140124

    doi

  94. [422]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-110519-075414

    URL:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-110519-075414. doi:10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-110519-075414

    doi

  95. [519]

    doi:10.1038/ s43588-025-00833-6

    URL:https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-025-00833-6. doi:10.1038/ s43588-025-00833-6

    doi

  96. [2014]

    Chemistry 452/456, Summer Quarter 2014

    2014

  97. [4872]

    doi:10.1016/j

    URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2007.11.034. doi:10.1016/j. ces.2007.11.034, model-Based Experimental Analysis

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.