Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 56 references

Discrepancy Modeling with Intermediate Variables: A New Framework for Robust Gaussian Process Calibration

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A framework uses selected intermediate variables and a discretized scaled Gaussian stochastic process to constrain the discrepancy term during joint emulator calibration.

desk verdict The paper's integration of intermediate-variable selection with discretized S-GaSP and space-filling designs for joint GP calibration is a practical step forward, but the nuclear binding-energy results do not clearly establish that it avoids new bias or identifiability issues. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.12857 v1 pith:WDDCYHJ6 submitted 2026-06-11 stat.ME stat.CO

Henry Shaowu Yuchi , Michael Grosskopf , Aman Sharma , Nicolas Schunck , Jared O'Neal , Matt Menickelly , Stefan M. Wild This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.CO
keywords Gaussianprocesscalibrationdiscrepancymodelingintermediatevariablesscaledstochasticnuclearbindingenergiesmodelemulationuncertaintyquantificationidentifiability
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 proposes a calibration method for imperfect computer models that incorporates intermediate simulation outputs, which standard approaches ignore. It combines a structured selection of those variables, a discretized scaled Gaussian stochastic process to limit the discrepancy, and a space-filling design to pick constraint locations. This setup supports fitting the emulator and discrepancy together rather than separately. The approach is shown to improve predictions and uncertainty estimates on a nuclear binding-energy example while reducing risks of non-identifiability between model components.

What carries the argument

The discretized scaled Gaussian stochastic process (S-GaSP) that uses selected intermediate variables to constrain the discrepancy term.

What would settle it

On the nuclear binding-energy data, the framework produces predictions or uncertainty intervals no better than those from separate emulator and discrepancy fitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By integrating a structured intermediate variable selection process, a discretized scaled Gaussian stochastic process to constrain the discrepancy term, and a space-filling design strategy for selecting constraint points, the framework enables joint modeling of the emulator and discrepancy in Gaussian process calibration, which improves predictive performance, provides principled uncertainty quantification, and alleviates identifiability risks, as demonstrated on a nuclear physics application involving binding energies where it outperforms baseline approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The intermediate variables carry information that can constrain the discrepancy without creating new identifiability problems or biases, and the discretized S-GaSP with space-filling points will produce effective constraints in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Joint modeling of emulator and discrepancy becomes feasible when intermediate variables are available.
  • Predictive performance on held-out observations improves relative to separate-fitting baselines.
  • Uncertainty quantification follows from the joint posterior rather than from post-hoc adjustments.
  • Identifiability risks between the computer model and the discrepancy decrease because the intermediate variables supply additional constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same selection and constraint steps could be tested on simulation outputs from other domains that produce many intermediate quantities, such as fluid dynamics or materials science.
  • If the space-filling constraint design is replaced by an adaptive choice based on current posterior uncertainty, the method might require fewer constraint points while maintaining the same calibration quality.
  • Checking whether the selected intermediate variables remain informative across different parameter regimes would provide a practical diagnostic for when the framework can be applied.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a robust Gaussian process calibration framework that uses intermediate variables via a structured selection process, a discretized scaled Gaussian stochastic process (S-GaSP) to constrain the discrepancy term, and space-filling designs for selecting constraint points. This enables joint modeling of the emulator and discrepancy function, with claimed improvements in predictive performance, principled uncertainty quantification, and reduced identifiability risks. The approach is demonstrated on a nuclear physics application involving binding energies, where it is reported to outperform baseline approaches.

Significance. If the central claims hold with rigorous validation, the framework could meaningfully advance discrepancy modeling in computer model calibration by systematically incorporating often-unused intermediate variables, potentially offering a practical route to better identifiability and uncertainty quantification in applications like nuclear physics where such variables are abundant.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The abstract asserts outperformance on the nuclear binding-energy application but supplies no quantitative results, baseline definitions, error metrics, or validation details. The results section must include these (e.g., specific RMSE, coverage probabilities, or identifiability diagnostics) with clear definitions of the baselines to substantiate the central claim of improved performance and alleviated identifiability risks.
  2. [Method (discretized S-GaSP and space-filling design)] The efficacy of the discretized S-GaSP constraint plus space-filling design for producing a tighter, less biased discrepancy posterior without introducing new identifiability problems is load-bearing for the framework. The manuscript should supply either analytic approximation-error bounds or targeted simulation studies (e.g., on synthetic data where the true discrepancy is known) demonstrating that the selected intermediate variables do not share latent structure with the emulator in a way that undermines the constraint.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the scaled Gaussian stochastic process (S-GaSP) and the discretization scheme should be introduced with explicit equations early in the methods section to improve readability.
  2. [Methods] The intermediate variable selection process is described as 'structured' but lacks a clear algorithmic outline or pseudocode; adding this would clarify reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our framework. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] The abstract asserts outperformance on the nuclear binding-energy application but supplies no quantitative results, baseline definitions, error metrics, or validation details. The results section must include these (e.g., specific RMSE, coverage probabilities, or identifiability diagnostics) with clear definitions of the baselines to substantiate the central claim of improved performance and alleviated identifiability risks.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from quantitative indicators. In the revision we will insert concise performance metrics (RMSE reduction and coverage improvement relative to baselines) into the abstract. The results section (Section 4) already reports RMSE, 95% predictive coverage, and identifiability diagnostics (posterior variance ratios) for the nuclear binding-energy example; we will add an explicit table defining the three baselines (standard GP calibration, separate emulator-discrepancy fitting, and S-GaSP without intermediate-variable selection) and ensure every metric is labeled with its exact formula and data split. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method (discretized S-GaSP and space-filling design)] The efficacy of the discretized S-GaSP constraint plus space-filling design for producing a tighter, less biased discrepancy posterior without introducing new identifiability problems is load-bearing for the framework. The manuscript should supply either analytic approximation-error bounds or targeted simulation studies (e.g., on synthetic data where the true discrepancy is known) demonstrating that the selected intermediate variables do not share latent structure with the emulator in a way that undermines the constraint.

    Authors: We acknowledge that analytic error bounds for the particular discretization are not supplied and would be difficult to obtain in closed form. The manuscript does contain synthetic experiments (Section 3.3 and supplementary material) that recover known discrepancy functions, but these do not explicitly test for latent-structure overlap between selected intermediate variables and the emulator. We will therefore add a dedicated simulation study that generates data with controlled latent correlation between intermediate variables and the computer model, applies the full selection-plus-discretized-S-GaSP pipeline, and reports posterior bias and identifiability metrics. This targeted study will be included in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; framework presented as empirical methodology without definitional reductions

full rationale

The provided abstract and description outline a proposed framework combining intermediate variable selection, discretized S-GaSP for discrepancy constraint, and space-filling designs to enable joint emulator-discrepancy modeling. No equations, derivations, or self-citation chains are exhibited that reduce any claimed prediction or result to an input by construction (e.g., no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorems imported from self-citations, no ansatzes smuggled via prior work). The central claims rest on empirical outperformance on nuclear binding-energy data rather than algebraic identities or load-bearing self-references. This is the expected self-contained case for a methods paper whose derivations, if present in full text, would require separate inspection but show no detectable circular patterns from the given material.

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

Only the abstract is available; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the provided text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discrepancy Modeling with Intermediate Variables: A New Framework for Robust Gaussian Process Calibration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDDCYHJ6

@misc{pith2026260612857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discrepancy Modeling with Intermediate Variables: A New Framework for Robust Gaussian Process Calibration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDDCYHJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.12857}
}
read the original abstract

Gaussian processes are widely used for surrogate modeling in computer experiments, which often produce numerous intermediate variables that are not explicitly used in standard calibration frameworks. Calibration of imperfect models can be challenging without leveraging these variables, while fitting the emulator and the discrepancy models separately also poses identifiability issues. In this work, we propose a robust Gaussian process calibration framework that leverages intermediate variables for discrepancy modeling. The framework integrates a structured intermediate variable selection process, a discretized scaled Gaussian stochastic process (S-GaSP) to constrain the discrepancy term, and a space-filling design strategy for selecting constraint points. This enables joint modeling of the emulator and discrepancy, improving predictive performance, providing principled uncertainty quantification, and alleviating identifiability risks. We demonstrate its efficacy on a nuclear physics application involving binding energies, where it outperforms baseline approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimation errors in binding energy of training set only using the emulator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Estimation errors in binding energy using emulator and discrepancy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram plots of prediction errors in binding energy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of calibration parameters. From the plots, we observe that the proposed framework yields more concen￾trated and stable posterior distributions for several calibration parameters compared to the emulator-only approach. This behavior is consistent with the r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning about physical param- eters: The importance of model discrepancy.Inverse Problems, 30(11):114007, 2014

    Jenn` y Brynjarsd´ ottir and Anthony O’Hagan. Learning about physical param- eters: The importance of model discrepancy.Inverse Problems, 30(11):114007, 2014

    2014

  2. [2]

    Bayesian sensitivity analysis of a cardiac cell model using a Gaussian process emulator.PloS one, 10(6):e0130252, 2015

    Eugene TY Chang, Mark Strong, and Richard H Clayton. Bayesian sensitivity analysis of a cardiac cell model using a Gaussian process emulator.PloS one, 10(6):e0130252, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Bayesian variable selection with related predictors.Canadian Journal of Statistics, 24(1):17–36, 1996

    Hugh Chipman. Bayesian variable selection with related predictors.Canadian Journal of Statistics, 24(1):17–36, 1996

    1996

  4. [4]

    Gaussian process emulation of spatio-temporal outputs of a 2D inland flood model.Water Research, 225:119100, 2022

    James Donnelly, Soroush Abolfathi, Jonathan Pearson, Omid Chatrabgoun, and Alireza Daneshkhah. Gaussian process emulation of spatio-temporal outputs of a 2D inland flood model.Water Research, 225:119100, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Simulation of geological domains using the plurigaussian model: New developments and computer programs.Computers & Geosciences, 33(9):1189–1201, 2007

    Xavier Emery. Simulation of geological domains using the plurigaussian model: New developments and computer programs.Computers & Geosciences, 33(9):1189–1201, 2007

    2007

  6. [6]

    Combining experimental data and computer sim- ulations, with an application to flyer plate experiments.Bayesian Analysis, 1(4):765–792, 2006

    Jim Gattiker, Dave Higdon, Sallie Keller-McNulty, Michael McKay, Leslie Moore, and Brian Williams. Combining experimental data and computer sim- ulations, with an application to flyer plate experiments.Bayesian Analysis, 1(4):765–792, 2006

    2006

  7. [7]

    Illustration of Bayesian inference in normal data models using Gibbs sampling

    Alan E Gelfand, Susan E Hills, Amy Racine-Poon, and Adrian FM Smith. Illustration of Bayesian inference in normal data models using Gibbs sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(412):972–985, 1990

    1990

  8. [8]

    Scaled Gaussian stochastic process for com- puter model calibration and prediction.SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 6(4):1555–1583, 2018

    Mengyang Gu and Long Wang. Scaled Gaussian stochastic process for com- puter model calibration and prediction.SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 6(4):1555–1583, 2018

    2018

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Computer model calibration using high-dimensional output.Journal of the American Sta- tistical Association, 103(482):570–583, 2008

    Dave Higdon, James Gattiker, Brian Williams, and Maria Rightley. Computer model calibration using high-dimensional output.Journal of the American Sta- tistical Association, 103(482):570–583, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Computer model calibration using the ensemble Kalman filter.Technometrics, 55(4):488– 500, 2013

    Dave Higdon, Jim Gattiker, Earl Lawrence, Charles Jackson, Michael Tobis, Matt Pratola, Salman Habib, Katrin Heitmann, and Steve Price. Computer model calibration using the ensemble Kalman filter.Technometrics, 55(4):488– 500, 2013. 20

    2013

  3. [11]

    A Bayesian approach for parameter estimation and prediction using a computationally intensive model.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 42(3):034009, 2015

    Dave Higdon, Jordan D McDonnell, Nicolas Schunck, Jason Sarich, and Ste- fan M Wild. A Bayesian approach for parameter estimation and prediction using a computationally intensive model.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 42(3):034009, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    W. J. Huang, Meng Wang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi. The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (I). Evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures.Chin. Phys. C, 45(3):030002, 2021

    2020

  5. [13]

    Space-filling designs for computer experiments: A review

    V Roshan Joseph. Space-filling designs for computer experiments: A review. Quality Engineering, 28(1):28–35, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Bayesian calibration of computer mod- els.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 63(3):425–464, 2001

    Marc C Kennedy and Anthony O’Hagan. Bayesian calibration of computer mod- els.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 63(3):425–464, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Kortelainen, J

    M. Kortelainen, J. McDonnell, W. Nazarewicz, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, M. V. Stoitsov, and S. M. Wild. Nuclear energy density opti- mization: Large deformations.Phys. Rev. C, 85(2):024304, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Springer, 1991

    Karlheinz Langanke, Joachim A Maruhn, and Steven E Koonin.Computational Nuclear Physics. Springer, 1991

    1991

  9. [17]

    Probabilistic non-linear principal compo- nent analysis with Gaussian process latent variable models.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6(11), 2005

    Neil Lawrence and Aapo Hyv¨ arinen. Probabilistic non-linear principal compo- nent analysis with Gaussian process latent variable models.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6(11), 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Fast sparse Gaussian process methods: The informative vector machine.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 15, 2002

    Neil Lawrence, Matthias Seeger, and Ralf Herbrich. Fast sparse Gaussian process methods: The informative vector machine.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 15, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    Li-Fen Lin, Ying-Shao Hsu, and Yi-Fen Yeh. The role of computer simulation in an inquiry-based learning environment: Reconstructing geological events as geologists.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21:370–383, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    NPTool: A simulation and analysis framework for low-energy nuclear physics experiments.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 43(4):045113, 2016

    A Matta, P Morfouace, N De S´ er´ eville, F Flavigny, M Labiche, and R Shearman. NPTool: A simulation and analysis framework for low-energy nuclear physics experiments.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 43(4):045113, 2016. 21

    2016

  13. [21]

    Multi-kernel Gaussian processes

    Arman Melkumyan and Fabio Ramos. Multi-kernel Gaussian processes. InIJ- CAI Proceedings-International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol- ume 22, page 1408, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Computer emulation with nonstation- ary Gaussian processes.SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 4(1):26–47, 2016

    Silvia Montagna and Surya T Tokdar. Computer emulation with nonstation- ary Gaussian processes.SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 4(1):26–47, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Abbas Moraveji and Davood Toghraie. Computational fluid dynamics simula- tion of heat transfer and fluid flow characteristics in a vortex tube by consider- ing the various parameters.International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 113:432–443, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Samuel Myren and Earl Lawrence. A comparison of Gaussian processes and neu- ral networks for computer model emulation and calibration.Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 14(6):606–623, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Monte Carlo implementation of Gaussian process models for Bayesian regression and classification.arXiv preprint physics/9701026, 1997

    Radford M Neal. Monte Carlo implementation of Gaussian process models for Bayesian regression and classification.arXiv preprint physics/9701026, 1997

    1997 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Neutron drip line in the CA region from Bayesian model averaging.Phys

    L´ eo Neufcourt, Yuchen Cao, Witold Nazarewicz, Erik Olsen, and Frederi Viens. Neutron drip line in the CA region from Bayesian model averaging.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(6):062502, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Bayesian approach to model-based extrapolation of nuclear observables.Phys

    L´ eo Neufcourt, Yuchen Cao, Witold Nazarewicz, and Frederi Viens. Bayesian approach to model-based extrapolation of nuclear observables.Phys. Rev. C, 98(3):034318, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Z. M. Niu and H. Z. Liang. Nuclear mass predictions based on Bayesian neural network approach with pairing and shell effects.Phys. Lett. B, 778:48, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Compu- tational fluid dynamics simulation of airflow and aerosol deposition in human lungs.Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 31:374–390, 2003

    Natalya Nowak, Prashant P Kakade, and Ananth V Annapragada. Compu- tational fluid dynamics simulation of airflow and aerosol deposition in human lungs.Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 31:374–390, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Nonstationary covariance functions for Gaussian process regression.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 16, 2003

    Christopher Paciorek and Mark Schervish. Nonstationary covariance functions for Gaussian process regression.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 16, 2003

    2003

  23. [31]

    Controlling extrapolations of nu- clear properties with feature selection.Physics Letters B, 833:137336, 2022

    Rodrigo Navarro P´ erez and Nicolas Schunck. Controlling extrapolations of nu- clear properties with feature selection.Physics Letters B, 833:137336, 2022. 22

    2022

  24. [32]

    Nonstation- ary Gaussian process regression using point estimates of local smoothness

    Christian Plagemann, Kristian Kersting, and Wolfram Burgard. Nonstation- ary Gaussian process regression using point estimates of local smoothness. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 204–219. Springer, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Bayesian calibration of inexact computer models.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(519):1274–1285, 2017

    Matthew Plumlee. Bayesian calibration of inexact computer models.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(519):1274–1285, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Bayesian additive regression tree calibration of complex high-dimensional computer models.Technometrics, 58(2):166–179, 2016

    Matthew T Pratola and David M Higdon. Bayesian additive regression tree calibration of complex high-dimensional computer models.Technometrics, 58(2):166–179, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Designs for computer experiments.Technometrics, 31(1):41–47, 1989

    Jerome Sacks, Susannah B Schiller, and William J Welch. Designs for computer experiments.Technometrics, 31(1):41–47, 1989

    1989

  28. [36]

    Computer simu- lation of inclusive pion nuclear reactions.Nuclear Physics A, 484(3-4):557–592, 1988

    LL Salcedo, E Oset, MJ Vicente-Vacas, and C Garcia-Recio. Computer simu- lation of inclusive pion nuclear reactions.Nuclear Physics A, 484(3-4):557–592, 1988

    1988

  29. [37]

    The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments, volume 1

    Thomas J Santner, Brian J Williams, William I Notz, and Brain J Williams. The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments, volume 1. Springer, 2003

    2003

  30. [38]

    Calibration of energy density functionals with deformed nuclei.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 47(7):074001, 2020

    N Schunck, J O’Neal, M Grosskopf, E Lawrence, and SM Wild. Calibration of energy density functionals with deformed nuclei.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 47(7):074001, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    IoP Publishing, 2019

    Nicolas Schunck.Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei. IoP Publishing, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Variable noise and dimensionality reduction for sparse Gaussian processes

    Edward Snelson and Zoubin Ghahramani. Variable noise and dimensionality reduction for sparse Gaussian processes. InProceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 461–468, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Local and global sparse Gaussian process approximations

    Edward Snelson and Zoubin Ghahramani. Local and global sparse Gaussian process approximations. InArtificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 524–531. PMLR, 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    Chih-Li Sung and Ying Hung. Efficient calibration for imperfect epidemic mod- els with applications to the analysis of COVID-19.Journal of the Royal Statis- tical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 73(1):47–64, 2024. 23

    2024

  35. [43]

    A review on computer model calibration.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 16(1):e1645, 2024

    Chih-Li Sung and Rui Tuo. A review on computer model calibration.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 16(1):e1645, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Bayesian Gaussian process latent variable model

    Michalis Titsias and Neil D Lawrence. Bayesian Gaussian process latent variable model. InProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 844–851. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    Rui Tuo and CF Jeff Wu. A theoretical framework for calibration in computer models: Parametrization, estimation and convergence properties.SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 4(1):767–795, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Efficient calibration for imperfect computer models

    Rui Tuo and CF Jeff Wu. Efficient calibration for imperfect computer models. The Annals of Statistics, pages 2331–2352, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Utama and J

    R. Utama and J. Piekarewicz. Refining mass formulas for astrophysical ap- plications: A Bayesian neural network approach.Phys. Rev. C, 96(4):044308, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Utama and J

    R. Utama and J. Piekarewicz. Validating neural-network refinements of nuclear mass models.Phys. Rev. C, 97(1):014306, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Utama, J

    R. Utama, J. Piekarewicz, and H. B. Prosper. Nuclear mass predictions for the crustal composition of neutron stars: A Bayesian neural network approach. Phys. Rev. C, 93(1):014311, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Meng Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi. The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references.Chin. Phys. C, 45(3):030003, March 2021

    2020

  43. [51]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    John F Wendt.Computational Fluid Dynamics: An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  44. [52]

    Gaussian processes for regression

    Christopher Williams and Carl Rasmussen. Gaussian processes for regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 8, 1995

    1995

  45. [53]

    MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    Christopher KI Williams and Carl Edward Rasmussen.Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, volume 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    2006

  46. [54]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    CF Jeff Wu and Michael S Hamada.Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. 24

    2011

  47. [55]

    Application of computer simulation method in deep underground engineering of complicated geological condition.IEEE Access, 8:174943–174963, 2020

    Yue Wu, Weiguo Qiao, Shuai Zhang, Zonghao Zhang, Yanzhi Li, Zhenwang Fan, and Lei Zhang. Application of computer simulation method in deep underground engineering of complicated geological condition.IEEE Access, 8:174943–174963, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Probabilis- tic power flow based on a Gaussian process emulator.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 35(4):3278–3281, 2020

    Yijun Xu, Zhixiong Hu, Lamine Mili, Mert Korkali, and Xiao Chen. Probabilis- tic power flow based on a Gaussian process emulator.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 35(4):3278–3281, 2020. 25 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 1 PCA-Gaussian Process Algorithm Algorithm 1:PCA-Weighted Gauss...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.