Prevention of Overfitting on Mesh-Structured Data Regressions with a Modified Laplace Operator

Enda D.V. Bigarella

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 13 references

Prevention of Overfitting on Mesh-Structured Data Regressions with a Modified Laplace Operator

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modified Laplace operator, evaluated on a staggered mesh, serves as a surrogate test metric that lets mesh-structured regressions train on all data while reducing overfitting.

desk verdict The staggered-mesh diffusion-loss regularizer is a genuinely new idea, but the paper never shows it prevents overfitting: the reported metric is the very objective being minimized. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06631 v1 pith:37MEGXER submitted 2025-07-09 cs.LG

Enda D.V. Bigarella This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords diffusionoperatoroverfittingpreventionmeshstructuresurrogatetestingmetricGaussianprocessregressionLaplacestaggerednoiseless

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

This paper proposes a way to detect and prevent overfitting in regressions on mesh-structured data without holding out any training points. It computes a diffusion sensor, a modified Laplace operator, on the training mesh as a 'true label' of the data's local curvature or entropy, and a second diffusion sensor on a staggered cell-centered mesh that catches oscillations inside the original mesh cells. The difference between these two sensors becomes an extra loss term during hyperparameter optimization, alongside the usual training error. The author demonstrates on a three-dimensional motor-efficiency dataset that this diffusion loss reduces the ringing and wiggling that appear when optimizing the log marginal likelihood alone, and that results become less dependent on hyperparameter initialization. The core claim, if true, is that a trained model should bound the extra features it introduces, and that this can be checked by a cheap diffusion computation rather than by splitting scarce data.

What carries the argument

The key object is the modified Laplace operator used as a diffusion sensor. On the original mesh it is the normalized undivided Laplacian (Eq. 6); on the staggered mesh it is a normalized second-difference stencil across the cell-centered staggered nodes (Eq. 7). The staggering gives the sensor sensitivity to oscillations that occur in the interior of a training cell, which the training-point sensor cannot see because the regression exactly interpolates the training data. In multiple dimensions the paper uses a single cell-centered staggered mesh and evaluates the sensor along the center-crossing diagonals (Eqs. 8-10), an approximation that exactly recovers the coordinate Laplace operator in two dimensions.

What would settle it

Train the same Gaussian process on the same mesh twice, once with the diffusion-loss objective and once with log marginal likelihood, then evaluate both on an independent held-out set that was never used in training. If lower diffusion loss does not correspond to lower held-out error across several hyperparameter initializations, the diffusion metric is not a valid surrogate for generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the loss of the Laplace-operator derivatives, computed on a staggered mesh, is a valid surrogate testing metric that allows training on the full dataset without held-out points. The proposed method defines a true label via the undivided Laplacian on the original training nodes (Eq. 6), defines a staggered-mesh sensor that averages the three possible three-point stencils (Eq. 7), and minimizes the combined loss L = RMSE_training + RMSE_diffusion (Eqs. 11-12) using the derivative-free COBYQA optimizer. The paper reports that this approach consistently achieves roughly three-fold lower diffusion losses than the best marginal-likelihood solutions, substantially reduces the dependence of final hyperparameters on initialization, and eliminates the 'ringing' artifacts observed with LML minimization. It also notes a trade-off: the training RMSE floor is 2.9e-4 with the diffusion method versus 1.3e-7 with LML, interpreted as the price paid for reduced overfitting.

Load-bearing premise

The staggered-mesh diffusion sensor's RMSE against the training-data sensor (Eq. 12) is a valid surrogate for generalization, so minimizing it reduces overfitting rather than merely smoothing the fit; the paper never shows an out-of-sample error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the surrogate claim holds, model training can use all available data points, which is advantageous when data are scarce and every point is valuable.
Overfitting monitoring becomes a cheap diffusion computation on a staggered mesh, replacing repeated train/test splits and making hyperparameter search less sensitive to initialization.
The diffusion-loss framework is presented as agnostic to the machine learning technique and extensible to unstructured meshes or graph Laplacians, potentially generalizing beyond Gaussian processes.
The documented trade-off is a higher training RMSE than LML optimization; the weighting parameters in the combined loss (Eq. 11) would need tuning when exact data reproduction is required.
The method does not fully resolve the RQ kernel's tendency to find local minima, though the final diffusion losses are close, so additional regularization or multi-start strategies may still be needed.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper never reports an out-of-sample error; the reported improvement is on the same diffusion-loss objective that is minimized during training. A direct held-out comparison would be the natural next test of whether lower diffusion loss really implies better generalization.
The diffusion-loss concept could act as a general-purpose regularizer for other regression models, potentially replacing or complementing weight decay or noise-variance tuning, since it penalizes curvature oscillations rather than magnitude.
On non-uniform or unstructured data the proposed diagonal stencil would need adaptation; the paper's own suggestion of edge-centered staggering for graphs points toward a spectral-Laplacian version that could be tested on point clouds.
A pragmatic extension would be to combine the diffusion loss with the log marginal likelihood in a multi-objective optimization, using the diffusion term as a safeguard against the LML's tendency to overfit fast-changing features.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The diffusion-loss objective is a real new idea: a staggered-mesh Laplace operator used as a surrogate test metric for GP hyperparameter selection, letting you train on all available data without a held-out split. That's a sensible extension of CFD oscillation sensors, and the paper is honest about its own limitations. It ships code and data, reports convergence histories, and openly acknowledges the training RMSE trade-off. Credit where due: the proposal is clearly stated and the figures do show reduced oscillation on the training slice.

But the central claim doesn't hold up as demonstrated. The quantitative evidence for overfitting prevention is Fig. 11, which plots exactly the diffusion loss that was minimized during training. A 3-fold lower value of your own objective is not evidence of better generalization; it's evidence that the optimizer did its job. The paper reports a training RMSE floor of 2.9e-4 versus 1.3e-7 for LML, which reads like a smoothing bias, not necessarily a reduction of overfitting. No out-of-sample error is reported anywhere, no comparison to standard baselines like cross-validation or a noisy GP, and there's no theoretical link between the diffusion loss and generalization error. The sensor is only computed at interior nodes, so boundary overfitting is invisible to the surrogate. The "true label" is derived from the training data itself, which makes matching it circular.

Some of these weaknesses are acknowledged or at least hinted at in the text, so the author is not hiding them. But the abstract's claim that testing does not require splitting data is only as good as the surrogate's validity, and that validity is not shown. I also noticed minor inconsistencies between the equations and the appendix code in how the stencil scaling is handled; the code comments suggest different spacings than the formulas, which would need cleaning up.

Who is this for? Someone working with sparse, mesh-structured surrogate models who is open to a different regularization idea and willing to do the validation themselves. I'd bring it to a reading group as a provocation, but I wouldn't cite it as evidence that the method works. It deserves a serious referee because the idea is novel and worth scrutinizing, but I would expect heavy revision: proper held-out evaluation, baseline comparisons, and a much more careful claim about what the diffusion loss actually measures.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new regularization/objective term for Gaussian process regression on mesh-structured data. The idea is to compute a modified Laplace (diffusion) sensor on the original training mesh as a 'true label' and on a staggered mesh built from cell centers as a surrogate 'test' signal, then to include the RMSE between these two sensors in the training loss. Hyperparameters are optimized with the COBYQA derivative-free optimizer on a 3D electric-motor efficiency dataset. The paper reports that this diffusion-loss training reduces oscillation ('wiggling' and 'ringing') compared to log-marginal-likelihood training, lowers the final diffusion-loss value roughly threefold, and reduces sensitivity to initialization. The author argues that this removes the need to split data into training and test sets.

Significance. If the diffusion-loss surrogate were a valid proxy for generalization error, the method would be practically useful for mesh-structured, noiseless GP regression, where data are scarce and every point is valuable. The paper is transparent about limitations, releases code and data, and demonstrates the idea on a nontrivial engineering dataset. At present, however, the quantitative evidence is circular: the reported success metric is the same objective that is minimized during training, and no out-of-sample or ground-truth generalization measurement is provided. The contribution is therefore best viewed as a smoothing/regularization heuristic with an interesting mechanism, not yet as a validated overfitting-prevention method. The scaling inconsistencies between the equations and the released implementation also need to be resolved before the numerical results can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2.3, Eq. (11)-(12), Fig. 11] The central claim that the diffusion-loss method 'prevents overfitting' is not supported by an independent performance metric. Eq. (11) defines the total loss L = beta1 * RMSE_training + beta2 * RMSE_diffusion, and RMSE_diffusion in Eq. (12) compares the Laplace sensor computed on the training data with the sensor computed on model predictions including staggered points. Fig. 11 plots exactly this minimized objective. A threefold reduction of this quantity relative to the LML solution shows only that the optimizer minimized its own target, not that generalization improved. The abstract's statement that testing does not require data splitting is a description of the surrogate, not evidence of its validity: the 'true label' is a transform of the training data itself. The paper needs either (a) an out-of-sample comparison on held-out points or on a second dataset with known ground truth, or (b) a theoretical argument linking the diffusion loss to a generalization bound. Until then, the observed smoothing in Fig. 9 is indistinguishable from a bias induced by the additional loss term, and the paper's own numbers (training RMSE floor 2.9e-4 versus 1.3e-7 for LML) show a clear fit-versus-smoothness trade-off.
[Section 3.2.1 and Appendix A] There is an unresolved factor-of-three discrepancy between the staggered sensor formula and the released reference implementation. For Delta = 1, Eq. (7) gives a prefactor of 1/(3(Delta/2)^2) = 4/3, while the appendix's staggered branch sets gridspacing = 0.5 and delta = 3 * gridspacing**2 and then returns the sum divided by 3 * delta, yielding a prefactor of 4/9 times the summed diagonal terms. The original-mesh branch has an analogous discrepancy: Eq. (9) uses 1/Delta^2 per diagonal and Eq. (10) sums four diagonals, while the appendix divides the summed terms by delta = 3 for Delta = 1. Since RMSE_diffusion is the quantity being optimized, this normalization inconsistency changes the objective and makes the numerical values in Figs. 8 and 11 unreproducible as stated. The authors should either correct the equations, correct the code, or explicitly state which convention is used throughout.
[Section 3.2.2, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The treatment of the multidimensional diagonal sensor needs clarification. The text states that for a uniform two-dimensional mesh the diagonal Laplace operator exactly recovers the same operator computed along coordinate directions. This is only true when the diagonal finite-difference stencil is normalized by the squared diagonal spacing (for example, 2*Delta^2 in 2D), which is not what Eqs. (8)-(10) show: they write 1/(3(Delta/2)^2) for the staggered sensor and 1/Delta^2 for the true label, then sum over the diagonals. With the written normalization, the resulting expression contains mixed second-derivative terms and a dimension-dependent overall factor. Because these sensors are called Laplace operators and serve as the 'true label' for entropy, the intended continuous operator should be stated precisely and the prefactors should be derived accordingly.
[Section 3.2.3 and Section 5] The diffusion loss in Eq. (12) is computed only at interior mesh nodes, with n* = prod_i (n_i - 2), so it is blind to oscillations that occur within one mesh cell of the boundary. The paper acknowledges this in Section 5 as an open question, but the application domain has fast changes near the limits of the operating envelope (Section 4, Fig. 5), so boundary behavior is exactly where overfitting may matter most. A boundary-blind surrogate cannot support the general claim that testing does not require point splitting; the paper should quantify the fraction of excluded points and examine a case where boundary overfitting is present, or explicitly limit the claim to interior oscillations.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 13] The label 'Log mod. Diff sion Operator' contains a typo; it should read 'Log mod. Diffusion Operator'.
[Section 4.3] The statement that the noise-variance analogy was 'confirmed in experiments over this data (not shown)' is unverifiable; either include the experiment or remove the assertion.
[Section 4] The variance is fixed to sigma = 0.15 after 'preliminary determination', but the procedure and its sensitivity are not reported; since sigma is a hyperparameter of the model, this choice should be documented or its influence on the conclusions shown.
[Eq. (10)] The notation '4 sum_{p=1}' is nonstandard and should be written as sum_{p=1}^{4}.
[Abstract and Section 1.1] The term 'entropy-in-features' is used throughout but never formally defined; the connection between the Laplace sensor and an entropy measure is asserted rather than derived.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quantitative evidence for overfitting prevention is the very diffusion-loss objective minimized during training, so the central success metric reduces by construction.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.3 (Eqs. 11-12) and Section 4.3 (Fig. 11)]
"L = β1 RMSEtraining + β2 RMSEdiffusion ... RMSEdiffusion = sqrt(1/n* Σ (∇ye − ∇̃ye)^2). The losses are minimized employing the COBYQA algorithm ... The proposed diffusion-loss method substantially decreases the dependency with initial parameters. Consistent 3-fold lower diffusion losses compared to those obtained with the most-preferred LML lengthscales are observed."

The metric used as evidence of success (final RMSEdiffusion, Fig. 11) is identical to the objective being minimized in Eqs. 11-12. Since hyperparameters are chosen by minimizing RMSEdiffusion, reporting that diffusion-loss training achieves lower RMSEdiffusion than LML-trained hyperparameters is reporting the optimized value of the fitted objective, not an independent measurement of generalization. The claim that this surrogate detects overfitting is the paper's assumption, not a result; no held-out error or out-of-sample quantity is reported. The observed smoothing is therefore the objective's own value, making the quantitative claim circular by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim — that the proposed method 'successfully reduce[s] the overfitting' — is supported by Fig. 11, which plots RMSEdiffusion after optimization. But RMSEdiffusion is exactly the term minimized in L = β1 RMSEtraining + β2 RMSEdiffusion (Eq. 11). Thus the 3-fold lower diffusion losses relative to LML are the optimizer achieving its own objective; they are not evidence that the staggered-mesh diffusion sensor is a valid proxy for generalization. The abstract's premise that 'testing does not require the splitting of points' rests entirely on this unvalidated surrogate equivalence. No out-of-sample test, cross-validation, or theoretical link between the diffusion loss and generalization error is provided. The paper does offer independent content: the method is a concrete deterministic regularizer on a Laplace-style sensor, it visibly reduces wiggling in Fig. 9, and it reduces sensitivity to initialization. But the load-bearing quantitative evidence for 'overfitting prevention' reduces to the fitted objective. Self-citations to the author's CFD background are not load-bearing here, so this is not a self-citation-chain case. The score is 6: partial circularity, because the headline success metric is the minimized objective while the method itself has independent algorithmic content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the untested premise that the staggered-mesh diffusion sensor is a valid surrogate for generalization, plus the availability of noiseless, structured-mesh data. Several hyperparameters (sigma, beta1, beta2, COBYQA search radius) are set by hand, and the 'entropy-in-features' term is a bespoke quantity without independent validation.

free parameters (3)

sigma (kernel variance) = 0.15
Fixed by hand after 'preliminarily determined to give best representation at the flatter boundaries of the domain' (Section 4). The final results depend on this choice.
beta1, beta2 (loss weights) = 1, 1
Set equal in Eq. 11 without sensitivity analysis. Changing them changes the balance between exact fit and smoothness.
COBYQA initial search radius = 3
Algorithmic setting used for the diffusion-loss runs in Section 4.3, not used for the LML runs, complicating direct comparison.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The training data are noiseless and must be reproduced exactly
Section 4.1 motivates noiseless training from certified engineering data, yet the proposed method's own training RMSE is 2.9e-4, so the assumption is not satisfied by the presented results.
ad hoc to paper The staggered-mesh modified Laplace sensor is a faithful surrogate for generalization error
Core premise of the method, introduced in Section 3.2.1 and Eq. 12. The paper provides no theoretical or out-of-sample evidence linking the diffusion loss to generalization.
domain assumption Uniform structured mesh and positive normalized outputs are available
Sections 2 and 4 require a tensor-product mesh and normalization of y to positive values. This limits applicability but is stated.
ad hoc to paper The diagonal stencil correctly approximates the Laplace operator with the paper's scaling
Section 3.2.2 asserts exact recovery in 2D; the code scales by delta=3 in 3D and does not average over diagonals in 2D, so the scaling claim is unverified.

invented entities (2)

Modified Laplace diffusion sensor on staggered mesh (tilde-nabla)
purpose: Surrogate test metric that detects cell-interior oscillations and is used as a loss term in Eq. 12.
No falsifiable prediction outside this paper; it is a bespoke metric whose link to generalization is assumed.
'Entropy-in-features' true label
purpose: Reference value computed by applying the sensor to training data, representing training-set 'entropy' to be matched by the trained model.
Metaphorical reinterpretation of a finite-difference quantity with no independent operational definition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prevention of Overfitting on Mesh-Structured Data Regressions with a Modified Laplace Operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/37MEGXER

@misc{pith2026250706631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prevention of Overfitting on Mesh-Structured Data Regressions with a Modified Laplace Operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/37MEGXER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06631}
}

read the original abstract

This document reports on a method for detecting and preventing overfitting on data regressions, herein applied to mesh-like data structures. The mesh structure allows for the straightforward computation of the Laplace-operator second-order derivatives in a finite-difference fashion for noiseless data. Derivatives of the training data are computed on the original training mesh to serve as a true label of the entropy of the training data. Derivatives of the trained data are computed on a staggered mesh to identify oscillations in the interior of the original training mesh cells. The loss of the Laplace-operator derivatives is used for hyperparameter optimisation, achieving a reduction of unwanted oscillation through the minimisation of the entropy of the trained model. In this setup, testing does not require the splitting of points from the training data, and training is thus directly performed on all available training points. The Laplace operator applied to the trained data on a staggered mesh serves as a surrogate testing metric based on diffusion properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06631 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The original training mesh shown as black nodes and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The direct application of the one-dimensional sta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The original multidimensional training mesh show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Wireframe view of the mesh showing the two main dime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Trained data based on the LML minimisation sliced a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Final lengthscales for different initial values of h [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Final diffusion losses for different initial values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Trained data based on the diffusion-loss minimisati [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The respective diffusion losses are shown in Fig. 11. T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Final diffusion losses for different initial values o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Two most demanding training- and diffusion-loss co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Diffusion operators sliced at (param1, param3) = (14, 0.7), showing the reference training values and the trained data results, both obtained with the SE kernel. In all cases, the RMSEtraining loss reaches a floor of 2.9e−4 as seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[5]

Cawley and N.L.C

G.C. Cawley and N.L.C. Talbot. On over-ﬁtting in model selec tion and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11:2079–2107,

work page
[6]

Meta-Learning Mean Functions for Gaussian Processes

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08098. Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press,

work page Pith review arXiv 1901
[7]

Antony Jameson

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239. Antony Jameson. AA215A Lecture 5,

arXiv 2006
[1995]

doi: 10.1137/0916069. G.C. Cawley and N.L.C. Talbot. Preventing over-ﬁtting duri ng model selection via bayesian regularisation of the hyper-parameters. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 8:841– 861,

doi:10.1137/0916069
[2004]

Enda Dimitri Vieira Bigarella, Joao Luiz F

doi: 10.1590/S1678-58782004000300005. Enda Dimitri Vieira Bigarella, Joao Luiz F. Azevedo, and Leo nardo Costa Scalabrin. Cen- tered and upwind multigrid turbulent ﬂow simulations of lau nch vehicle conﬁgurations. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets , 44(1):52–65,

work page doi:10.1590/s1678-58782004000300005
[2005]

URL http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/76685. H.S. Tang, W.B. Dong, and A. Agrawal. A phenomenon of artiﬁci al odd–even grid os- cillation and its presence in domain decomposition computa tion: Algebraic analysis and numerical illustration. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 333: 404–427,

work page 2027
[2006]

Leonardo Scalabrin and Iain D

ISBN 9780262182539. Leonardo Scalabrin and Iain D. Boyd. Development of an unstr uctured Navier- Stokes solver for hypersonic nonequilibrium aerothermody namics. In 38th AIAA Thermophysics Conference , number AIAA-2005-5203. AIAA,

work page 2005
[2007]

Steven L

doi: 10.2514/1.23843. Steven L. Brunton, J. Nathan Kutz, Krithika Manohar, Aleksa ndr Y. Aravkin, Kristi Morgansen, Jennifer Klemisch, Nicholas Goebel, Jam es Buttrick, Jeﬀrey Poskin, Agnes Blom-Schieber, Thomas Hogan, and Darren McDo nald. Data-driven aerospace engineering: Reframing the industry with machin e learning,

work page doi:10.2514/1.23843

Show all 13 references

[2010]

URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2010-5075

doi: 10.2514/6.2010-5075. URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2010-5075. T. M. Ragonneau and Z. Zhang. COBYQA Version 1.1.2,

2010 doi
[2018]

doi: https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.cam.2017.10.017

ISSN 0377-0427. doi: https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.cam.2017.10.017. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042717305186. E Turkel and V N Vatsa. Eﬀect of artiﬁcial viscosity on three-d imensional ﬂow solutions. AIAA Journal , 32(1):39–45, Jan

2017
[2020]

Richard H

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.10740. Richard H. Byrd, Peihuang Lu, Jorge Nocedal, and Ciyou Zhu. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on Scientiﬁc Computing , 16(5):1190– 1208,

2008 arXiv
[2023]

Sergei Manzhos and Manabu Ihara

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.11678. Sergei Manzhos and Manabu Ihara. Rectangularization of Gau ssian process regression for optimization of hyperparameters. Machine Learning with Applications , 13:2079–2107,

arXiv
[2024]

doi: 10.1109/acce ss.2024.3402543

ISSN 2169-3536. doi: 10.1109/acce ss.2024.3402543. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3402543. Sanae Lotﬁ, Pavel Izmailov, Gregory Benton, Micah Goldblum , and Andrew Gordon Wil- son. Bayesian model selection, the marginal likelihood, an d generalization,

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Cawley and N.L.C

G.C. Cawley and N.L.C. Talbot. On over-ﬁtting in model selec tion and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11:2079–2107,

work page

[2] [6]

Meta-Learning Mean Functions for Gaussian Processes

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08098. Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press,

work page Pith review arXiv 1901

[3] [7]

Antony Jameson

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239. Antony Jameson. AA215A Lecture 5,

arXiv 2006

[4] [1995]

doi: 10.1137/0916069. G.C. Cawley and N.L.C. Talbot. Preventing over-ﬁtting duri ng model selection via bayesian regularisation of the hyper-parameters. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 8:841– 861,

doi:10.1137/0916069

[5] [2004]

Enda Dimitri Vieira Bigarella, Joao Luiz F

doi: 10.1590/S1678-58782004000300005. Enda Dimitri Vieira Bigarella, Joao Luiz F. Azevedo, and Leo nardo Costa Scalabrin. Cen- tered and upwind multigrid turbulent ﬂow simulations of lau nch vehicle conﬁgurations. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets , 44(1):52–65,

work page doi:10.1590/s1678-58782004000300005

[6] [2005]

URL http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/76685. H.S. Tang, W.B. Dong, and A. Agrawal. A phenomenon of artiﬁci al odd–even grid os- cillation and its presence in domain decomposition computa tion: Algebraic analysis and numerical illustration. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 333: 404–427,

work page 2027

[7] [2006]

Leonardo Scalabrin and Iain D

ISBN 9780262182539. Leonardo Scalabrin and Iain D. Boyd. Development of an unstr uctured Navier- Stokes solver for hypersonic nonequilibrium aerothermody namics. In 38th AIAA Thermophysics Conference , number AIAA-2005-5203. AIAA,

work page 2005

[8] [2007]

Steven L

doi: 10.2514/1.23843. Steven L. Brunton, J. Nathan Kutz, Krithika Manohar, Aleksa ndr Y. Aravkin, Kristi Morgansen, Jennifer Klemisch, Nicholas Goebel, Jam es Buttrick, Jeﬀrey Poskin, Agnes Blom-Schieber, Thomas Hogan, and Darren McDo nald. Data-driven aerospace engineering: Reframing the industry with machin e learning,

work page doi:10.2514/1.23843