Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 cited by

QUEENS: An Open-Source Python Framework for Solver-Independent Analyses of Large-Scale Computational Models

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents QUEENS, an open-source Python framework that lets researchers run convergence studies, optimization, uncertainty quantification, Bayesian inverse analysis, and probabilistic machine learning on arbitrary physics-based so

desk verdict Promising software-framework abstract undermined by a corrupt, mismatched body; get the correct manuscript and review the repository, but don't kill it based on this broken submission. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16316 v2 pith:66H4KC4D submitted 2025-08-22 cs.CE

Jonas Biehler , Jonas Nitzler , Sebastian Brandstaeter , Maximilian Dinkel , Volker Gravemeier , Lea J. Haeusel , Gil Robalo Rei , Harald Willmann
show 2 more authors
Barbara Wirthl Wolfgang A. Wall
This is my paper
classification cs.CE
keywords uncertaintyquantificationBayesianinverseanalysismulti-fidelitysolver-independentsimulationdistributedcomputingdigitaltwinsprobabilisticmachinelearningopen-sourcesoftware
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 presents QUEENS, an open-source Python framework that lets researchers compose and manage repeated analyses of large-scale computational models—patient-specific digital twins of organs are the motivating example—using arbitrary physics-based simulation solvers on distributed infrastructure. The central assertion is that a single solver-independent abstraction can handle simulation execution, data, resource management, and parallelization, while offering a broad menu of algorithms: convergence studies, optimization, uncertainty quantification, Bayesian inverse analysis, multi-fidelity UQ, and probabilistic machine learning. If that assertion holds, individual researchers can set up sophisticated UQ or Bayesian workflows without reimplementing algorithm or parallel-execution plumbing. The framework adopts a Bayesian mindset but also supports ordinary deterministic analyses, so new users can enter with simple convergence studies and add probabilistic layers incrementally.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the solver-independent abstraction layer: a common contract for describing a solver's inputs, outputs, and execution so that QUEENS can launch it, collect results, and distribute runs without knowing solver internals. Around that contract sit the simulation-management and parallelization layer and a library of analysis algorithms. The modular 'analysis' blocks are the other key piece: deterministic studies, optimization, sampling-based UQ, Bayesian inversion, and machine-learning routines can be nested or composed, which is what lets a user grow from a simple convergence study to a full hierarchical Bayesian analysis in incremental steps.

What would settle it

Run a standard thermal or mechanical finite-element benchmark with a known reference solution through the framework and in a native driver, with identical solver settings, over a UQ sampling campaign on a distributed cluster; if the output ensembles or convergence rates differ beyond numerical tolerance, or if wall-clock overhead grows linearly with problem size, the solver-independent abstraction is altering behavior or costing unacceptable performance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QUEENS's core claim is that computational analysis workflows can be modularized so that the same suite of algorithms operates on any physics-based solver. Each solver is wrapped behind a common interface, and the framework manages the repeated runs, data flow, resources, and distributed parallelization. On top of this layer sit implementations of advanced algorithms, including multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification and efficient multi-fidelity Bayesian inverse analysis, plus probabilistic machine learning. Because the architecture is modular, analyses can be switched by configuration rather than code rewrites, and hierarchical algorithms can be assembled from simpler building blocks. The

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a universal interface can faithfully represent how any simulation solver reads inputs, writes outputs, and executes, so that analysis algorithms see the same numerical behavior they would see if written for that solver directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can run UQ, optimization, and Bayesian inverse analysis on large simulation models by configuring the solver and the analysis, rather than writing execution and parallelization code by hand.
  • A solver can be swapped without reimplementing the analysis algorithms, because the algorithms interact only with the common interface.
  • Maintained implementations of multi-fidelity UQ and multi-fidelity Bayesian inversion become directly available, so researchers do not have to reproduce advanced methods from the literature.
  • Groups that need deterministic analysis and groups that need probabilistic analysis can share one framework, since both modes are supported in the same architecture.
  • Repeated-model workflows such as patient-specific digital twins become practical on distributed systems without bespoke engineering per project.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the convenience of the abstraction does not cost fidelity: a benchmark comparing directly driven and framework-driven runs of the same solver would show whether numerical results and convergence properties are preserved.
  • The hierarchical, modular design points toward nested multi-fidelity workflows in which a cheap surrogate and an expensive solver are composed from the same building blocks; the paper does not demonstrate such a composition explicitly.
  • The paper's motivating digital-twin use case suggests the framework's real test is a fully assembled clinical-scale workflow with a production solver, data pipeline, and posterior analysis end to end—something the abstract does not yet show.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents QUEENS, an open-source Python framework for composing and managing simulation analyses with arbitrary physics-based solvers on distributed computing infrastructures. The abstract advertises a comprehensive algorithmic suite covering convergence studies, optimization, uncertainty quantification, Bayesian inverse analysis, multi-fidelity UQ, and probabilistic machine learning, plus a modular architecture and an open-source repository. The only readable portion available to me is the abstract; the supplied full text is corrupted mojibake and its header cites a different arXiv identifier (2508.16324v1 [hep-ex]) rather than the target submission, so no implementation, tests, or benchmarks could be examined.

Significance. If the framework operates as described, it would address a real need in computational engineering by providing a maintained, solver-agnostic layer that reuses UQ and Bayesian-inversion algorithms across widely different simulation codes. The open-source availability and the stated modularity are positive features, and the ambition to lower the barrier for digital-twin-style repeated analyses is worthwhile. However, the present manuscript delivers only assertions. The central 'arbitrary solver' guarantee and the accuracy/convergence properties of the bundled algorithms are load-bearing, and neither can currently be checked because the body text is unreadable. As submitted, the evidence does not yet meet the standard for a software-framework paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text / header] The body text is not legible: it is mojibake and carries the header arXiv:2508.16324v1 [hep-ex] instead of arXiv:2508.16316. None of the implementation, tests, or benchmarks can be weighed, so the central claim of solver-independent, distributed analyses is unverified. Please resupply a readable manuscript and correct the metadata. Without this, the manuscript cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract asserts 'state-of-the-art' and 'cutting-edge' algorithm implementations, but no convergence studies, error bars, or comparisons to existing frameworks are visible in the readable portion. The paper should provide at least one quantitative validation per headline algorithm class (optimization, UQ, Bayesian inverse analysis, multi-fidelity UQ) and ideally compare with an established framework. If such benchmarks exist in the body, they are currently inaccessible.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'arbitrary (physics-based) solvers' is a universal quantifier that needs a precise contract. The manuscript should state exactly what input/output formats, execution protocols, and parallelization assumptions a solver must satisfy, and what happens when a solver requires bespoke handling. Without this, the central promise cannot be falsified. If the full text defines this contract, it must be pointed to explicitly after repair.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified; software paper's claims are about code availability, not derivation.

full rationale

The paper is a software description for the QUEENS framework. Its central claim is that an open-source Python framework exists, is modular, and implements various algorithms for simulation analyses. There is no derivation chain in the abstract: no equations are defined in terms of fitted parameters, no prediction is produced from a fitted input, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The phrase 'our latest cutting-edge research' indicates self-promotion, but it is not load-bearing in a mathematical sense; it does not substitute for an argument or proof. No specific reduction between equations or definitions can be quoted from the abstract. The supplied full text is garbled and unreadable, so no further internal steps can be inspected. Based on the available readable content, there is no evidence of circularity, and the paper's claims are self-contained assertions about software functionality that are falsifiable by running the code.

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

No quantitative claims, fitted parameters, or new postulated entities appear in the abstract. The analysis rests on standard math plus two domain assumptions: that a universal solver abstraction is feasible, and that the bundled algorithm implementations are faithful to the cited methods. Both are asserted but not demonstrated in the readable portion of the manuscript.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Standard Bayesian probability theory and Monte Carlo sampling results underlying UQ and Bayesian inversion are correct.
    The framework's UQ and Bayesian analysis algorithms, named in the abstract, rest on textbook Bayesian inference and sampling theory that the paper does not derive.
  • domain assumption Arbitrary physics-based solvers can be encapsulated behind a common interface without unacceptable loss of generality or performance.
    The central 'solver-independent' promise in the abstract presupposes an abstraction layer that faithfully represents arbitrary solvers; if false, the framework's core value collapses.
  • domain assumption The bundled implementations preserve the accuracy and convergence properties claimed in the cited state-of-the-art literature.
    The abstract claims 'efficiently implemented state-of-the-art algorithms' and 'cutting-edge research'; implementation correctness is assumed and is not verifiable from the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QUEENS: An Open-Source Python Framework for Solver-Independent Analyses of Large-Scale Computational Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66H4KC4D

@misc{pith2026250816316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QUEENS: An Open-Source Python Framework for Solver-Independent Analyses of Large-Scale Computational Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66H4KC4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16316}
}
read the original abstract

A growing challenge in research and industrial engineering applications is the need for repeated, systematic analysis of large-scale computational models, for example, patient-specific digital twins of diseased human organs: The analysis requires efficient implementation, data, resource management, and parallelization, possibly on distributed systems. To tackle these challenges and save many researchers from annoying, time-consuming tasks, we present QUEENS (Quantification of Uncertain Effects in Engineering Systems), an open-source Python framework for composing and managing simulation analyses with arbitrary (physics-based) solvers on distributed computing infrastructures. Besides simulation management capabilities, QUEENS offers a comprehensive collection of efficiently implemented state-of-the-art algorithms ranging from routines for convergence studies and common optimization algorithms to more advanced sampling algorithms for uncertainty quantification and Bayesian inverse analysis. Additionally, we provide our latest cutting-edge research in multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification, efficient multi-fidelity Bayesian inverse analysis, and probabilistic machine learning. QUEENS adopts a Bayesian, probabilistic mindset but equally supports standard deterministic analysis without requiring prior knowledge of probability theory. The modular architecture allows rapid switching between common types of analyses and facilitates building sophisticated hierarchical algorithms. Encouraging natural incremental steps and scaling towards complexity allows researchers to consider the big picture while building towards it through smaller, manageable steps. The open-source repository is available at https://github.com/queens-py/queens.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Efficient Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design for Expensive Computational Models over Finite Design Sets

    cs.CE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Leave-one-out sample reuse, common random numbers, and bootstrap-based racing select the Bayesian-optimal experimental design from a finite set using up to ~100x fewer expensive model evaluations.

  2. A Framework for the Bayesian Calibration of Complex and Data-Scarce Models in Applied Sciences

    stat.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    ACBICI is a new open-source Python library that implements Kennedy–O'Hagan Bayesian calibration with Gaussian-process surrogates, discrepancy terms, multi-output support, and diagnostics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    py DOE : The experimental design package for Python.; 2013

    Baudin M, Christopoulou M, Collette Y, Martinez JM. py DOE : The experimental design package for Python.; 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses

    Iwanaga T, Usher W, Herman J. Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses. Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling 2022 ; 4 : 18155. 10.18174/sesmo.18155 doi: 10.18174/sesmo.18155

    doi:10.18174/sesmo.18155 2022

  3. [3]

    Chaospy: An open source tool for designing methods of uncertainty quantification

    Feinberg J, Langtangen HP. Chaospy: An open source tool for designing methods of uncertainty quantification. Journal of Computational Science 2015 ; 11 : 46--57. 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008

    doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008 2015

  4. [4]

    UQLab : A Framework for Uncertainty Quantification in Matlab

    Marelli S, Sudret B. UQLab : A Framework for Uncertainty Quantification in Matlab. In: The 2nd International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM 2014). ; 2014; University of Liverpool, United Kingdom : 2554--2563

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    UQpy : A General Purpose Python Package and Development Environment for Uncertainty Quantification

    Olivier A, Giovanis DG, Aakash BS, Chauhan M, Vandanapu L, Shields MD. UQpy : A General Purpose Python Package and Development Environment for Uncertainty Quantification. Journal of Computational Science 2020 ; 47 : 101204. 10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101204 doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101204

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    CUQIpy: I

    Riis NAB, Alghamdi AMA, Uribe F, et al. CUQIpy: I. Computational uncertainty quantification for inverse problems in Python. Inverse Problems 2024 ; 40(4) : 045009. 10.1088/1361-6420/ad22e7 doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ad22e7

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6420/ad22e7 2024

  7. [7]

    CUQIpy: II

    Alghamdi AMA, Riis NAB, Afkham BM, et al. CUQIpy: II. Computational uncertainty quantification for PDE-based inverse problems in Python. Inverse Problems 2024 ; 40(4) : 045010. 10.1088/1361-6420/ad22e8 doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ad22e8

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6420/ad22e8 2024

  8. [8]

    a \"a si \

    Lintusaari J, Vuollekoski H, Kangasr \"a \"a si \"o A, et al. ELFI: Engine for Likelihood-Free Inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2018 ; 19(16) : 1-7

    work page 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    PyMC: A Modern and Comprehensive Probabilistic Programming Framework in Python

    Oriol AP, Virgile A, Colin C, et al. PyMC: A Modern and Comprehensive Probabilistic Programming Framework in Python. PeerJ Computer Science 2023 ; 9 : e1516. 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516 doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    An Introduction to Sequential Monte Carlo

    Chopin N, Papaspiliopoulos O. An Introduction to Sequential Monte Carlo . Springer International Publishing . 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    UM-Bridge : Uncertainty Quantification and Modeling Bridge

    Seelinger L, Cheng-Seelinger V, Davis A, Parno M, Reinarz A. UM-Bridge : Uncertainty Quantification and Modeling Bridge. Journal of Open Source Software 2023 ; 8(83) : 4748. 10.21105/joss.04748 doi: 10.21105/joss.04748

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Dakota, A Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis (V.6.16 User's Manual)

    Adams BM, Bohnhoff WJ, Dalbey KR, et al. Dakota, A Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis (V.6.16 User's Manual). tech. rep., Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM); Albuq...

    2021

  5. [13]

    OpenTURNS : An Industrial Software for Uncertainty Quantification in Simulation

    Baudin M, Dutfoy A, Iooss B, Popelin AL. OpenTURNS : An Industrial Software for Uncertainty Quantification in Simulation . In: Ghanem R, Higdon D, Owhadi H. -2pt, eds. Handbook of Uncertainty Quantification Cham : Springer International Publishing . 2017 (pp. 2001--2038)

    2017

  6. [14]

    EasyVVUQ: A Library for Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification in High Performance Computing

    Richardson RA, Wright DW, Edeling W, Jancauskas V, Lakhlili J, Coveney PV. EasyVVUQ: A Library for Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification in High Performance Computing. Journal of Open Research Software 2020. 10.5334/jors.303 doi: 10.5334/jors.303

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Handbook of Monte Carlo Methods

    Kroese DP, Taimre T, Botev ZI. Handbook of Monte Carlo Methods . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics Wiley. 1 ed. 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code

    McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ. A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code . Technometrics 1979 ; 21(2) : 239--245. 10.2307/1268522 doi: 10.2307/1268522

    1979 doi

  9. [17]

    On the Distribution of Points in a Cube and the Approximate Evaluation of Integrals

    Sobol' I. On the Distribution of Points in a Cube and the Approximate Evaluation of Integrals. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 1967 ; 7(4) : 86--112. 10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9 doi: 10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9

    1967 doi

  10. [18]

    A Method for the Solution of Certain Non-Linear Problems in Least Squares

    Levenberg K. A Method for the Solution of Certain Non-Linear Problems in Least Squares. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 1944 ; 2(2) : 164--168. 10.1090/qam/10666 doi: 10.1090/qam/10666

    1944 doi

  11. [19]

    An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters

    Marquardt DW. An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters . Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 1963 ; 11(2) : 431--441. 10.1137/0111030 doi: 10.1137/0111030

    1963 doi

  12. [20]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python

    Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python . Nature Methods 2020 ; 17 : 261--272. 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization.; 2017

    Kingma DP, Ba J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization.; 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude

    Tieleman T, Hinton G, others . Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude. COURSERA: Neural networks for machine learning 2012 ; 4(2) : 26--31

    2012

  15. [23]

    A generalized probabilistic learning approach for multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification in complex physical simulations

    Nitzler J, Biehler J, Fehn N, Koutsourelakis PS, Wall WA. A generalized probabilistic learning approach for multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification in complex physical simulations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2022 ; 400 : 115600. https://doi.org/10....

    2022

  16. [24]

    Multifidelity approaches for uncertainty quantification

    Biehler J, Mäck M, Nitzler J, Hanss M, Koutsourelakis PS, Wall WA. Multifidelity approaches for uncertainty quantification. GAMM-Mitteilungen 2019 ; 42(2) : e201900008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gamm.201900008 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/gamm.201900008

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Towards efficient uncertainty quantification in complex and large-scale biomechanical problems based on a Bayesian multi-fidelity scheme

    Biehler J, Gee MW, Wall WA. Towards efficient uncertainty quantification in complex and large-scale biomechanical problems based on a Bayesian multi-fidelity scheme. Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology 2015 ; 14 : 489--513. 10.1007/s10237-014-0618-0 doi: 10.1007/s10237...

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Accurate uncertainty quantification using inaccurate computational models

    Koutsourelakis PS. Accurate uncertainty quantification using inaccurate computational models. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 2009 ; 31(5) : 3274--3300. 10.1137/080733565 doi: 10.1137/080733565

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments

    Morris MD. Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments . Technometrics 1991 ; 33(2) : 161--174. 10.1080/00401706.1991.10484804 doi: 10.1080/00401706.1991.10484804

    1991

  20. [28]

    Sensitivity Estimates for Nonlinear Mathematical Models

    Sobol IM. Sensitivity Estimates for Nonlinear Mathematical Models . Mathematical modelling and computational experiments 1993 ; 1(4) : 407--414

    1993

  21. [29]

    Global Sensitivity Indices for Nonlinear Mathematical Models and Their Monte Carlo Estimates

    Sobol IM. Global Sensitivity Indices for Nonlinear Mathematical Models and Their Monte Carlo Estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 2001 ; 55(1) : 271--280. 10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6 doi: 10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    A Bayesian Approach for Global Sensitivity Analysis of ( Multifidelity ) Computer Codes

    Le Gratiet L, Cannamela C, Iooss B. A Bayesian Approach for Global Sensitivity Analysis of ( Multifidelity ) Computer Codes . SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 2014 ; 2(1) : 336--363. 10.1137/130926869 doi: 10.1137/130926869

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    Global Sensitivity Analysis Based on Gaussian-process Metamodelling for Complex Biomechanical Problems

    Wirthl B, Brandstaeter S, Nitzler J, Schrefler BA, Wall WA. Global Sensitivity Analysis Based on Gaussian-process Metamodelling for Complex Biomechanical Problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 2023 ; 39(3) : e3675. 10.1002/cnm.3675 doi:...

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning

    Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning . Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England : The MIT Press . 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    Gaussian Processes for Big Data

    Hensman J, Fusi N, Lawrence ND. Gaussian Processes for Big Data. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI2013) 2013 ; 1309.6835 : 282--290

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bayesian neural networks and density networks

    MacKay DJ. Bayesian neural networks and density networks. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1995 ; 354(1) : 73--80. 10.1016/0168-9002(94)00931-7 doi: 10.1016/0168-9002(94)00931-7

    1995 doi

  27. [35]

    The no-u-turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in hamiltonian monte carlo

    Hoffman MD, Gelman A. The no-u-turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in hamiltonian monte carlo. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2014 ; 15(47) : 1593--1623

    2014

  28. [36]

    Sequential Monte Carlo samplers

    Del Moral P, Doucet A, Jasra A. Sequential Monte Carlo samplers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 2006 ; 68(3) : 411--436. 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2006.00553.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2006.00553.x

    2006

  29. [37]

    Monte Carlo Gradient Estimation in Machine Learning

    Mohamed S, Rosca M, Figurnov M, Mnih A. Monte Carlo Gradient Estimation in Machine Learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2020 ; 21(132) : 1--62

    2020

  30. [38]

    Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians

    Blei DM, Kucukelbir A, McAuliffe JD. Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2017 ; 112(518) : 859-877. 10.1080/01621459.2017.1285773 doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1285773

    2017

  31. [39]

    Stochastic Variational Inference

    Hoffman MD, Blei DM, Wang C, Paisley J. Stochastic Variational Inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2013 ; 14(40) : 1303--1347

    2013

  32. [40]

    Variational Dropout and the Local Reparameterization Trick

    Kingma DP, Salimans T, Welling M. Variational Dropout and the Local Reparameterization Trick . In: Cortes C, Lawrence N, Lee D, Sugiyama M, Garnett R. -2pt, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 28. Curran Associates, Inc. ; 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Sticking the Landing: Simple, Lower-Variance Gradient Estimators for Variational Inference

    Roeder G, Wu Y, Duvenaud DK. Sticking the Landing: Simple, Lower-Variance Gradient Estimators for Variational Inference. In: Guyon I, Luxburg UV, Bengio S, et al. -2pt, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 30. Curran Associates, Inc. ; 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Black box variational inference

    Ranganath R, Gerrish S, Blei D. Black box variational inference. In: PMLR. ; 2014 : 814--822

    2014

  35. [43]

    Efficient Gradient-Free Variational Inference using Policy Search

    Arenz O, Neumann G, Zhong M. Efficient Gradient-Free Variational Inference using Policy Search. In: Dy J, Krause A. -2pt, eds. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning . 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research . PMLR. ; 2018 : 234--243

    2018

  36. [44]

    Solving Bayesian inverse problems with expensive likelihoods using constrained Gaussian processes and active learning

    Dinkel M, Geitner CM, Rei GR, Nitzler J, Wall WA. Solving Bayesian inverse problems with expensive likelihoods using constrained Gaussian processes and active learning. Inverse Problems 2024 ; 40(9) : 095008. 10.1088/1361-6420/ad5eb4 doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ad5eb4

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    -2pt, ed

    Saltelli A. -2pt, ed. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models . Hoboken, NJ : Wiley . 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    Global sensitivity analysis of a homogenized constrained mixture model of arterial growth and remodeling

    Brandstaeter S, Fuchs SL, Biehler J, Aydin RC, Wall WA, Cyron CJ. Global sensitivity analysis of a homogenized constrained mixture model of arterial growth and remodeling. Journal of Elasticity 2021 ; 145(1-2) : 191--221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-021-09833-9 doi: https:/...

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    A novel physics-based and data-supported microstructure model for part-scale simulation of laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4V

    Nitzler J, Meier C, M \"u ller KW, Wall WA, Hodge NE. A novel physics-based and data-supported microstructure model for part-scale simulation of laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4V. Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 2021 ; 8(1) : 16. https://doi.org/10....

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Physics-based modeling and predictive simulation of powder bed fusion additive manufacturing across length scales

    Meier C, Fuchs SL, Much N, et al. Physics-based modeling and predictive simulation of powder bed fusion additive manufacturing across length scales. GAMM-Mitteilungen 2021 ; 44(3) : e202100014. https://doi.org/10.1002/gamm.202100014 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/gamm.202100014

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Inverse analysis of material parameters in coupled multi-physics biofilm models

    Willmann H, Wall WA. Inverse analysis of material parameters in coupled multi-physics biofilm models. Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 2022 ; 9(1) : 1--32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-022-00220-0 doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-022-00220-0

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Validation and parameter optimization of a hybrid embedded/homogenized solid tumor perfusion model

    Kremheller J, Brandstaeter S, Schrefler BA, Wall WA. Validation and parameter optimization of a hybrid embedded/homogenized solid tumor perfusion model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 2021 ; 37(8) : e3508. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.3508...

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Bayesian calibration of coupled computational mechanics models under uncertainty based on interface deformation

    Willmann H, Nitzler J, Brandst \"a ter S, Wall WA. Bayesian calibration of coupled computational mechanics models under uncertainty based on interface deformation. Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 2022 ; 9(1) : 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-022-002...

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Tumour growth: An approach to calibrate parameters of a multiphase porous media model based on in vitro observations of Neuroblastoma spheroid growth in a hydrogel microenvironment

    Hervas-Raluy S, Wirthl B, Guerrero PE, et al. Tumour growth: An approach to calibrate parameters of a multiphase porous media model based on in vitro observations of Neuroblastoma spheroid growth in a hydrogel microenvironment. Computers in Biology and Medicine 2023 ; 159 : 10...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling.; 2016

    Developers DC. Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling.; 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    PBS : A Unified Priority-Based Scheduler

    Feng H, Misra V, Rubenstein D. PBS : A Unified Priority-Based Scheduler. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 2007 ; 35(1) : 203--214. 10.1145/1269899.1254906 doi: 10.1145/1269899.1254906

    2007

  47. [55]

    SLURM : Simple Linux Utility for Resource Management

    Yoo AB, Jette MA, Grondona M. SLURM : Simple Linux Utility for Resource Management. In: Feitelson D, Rudolph L, Schwiegelshohn U. -2pt, eds. Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2003 : 44--60

    2003

  48. [56]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION output.internal 'delimiter := duplicate empty 'pop 's := output.state mid.sentence = delimiter * write output.state before.all = 'write add.period " " * write if mid.sentence 'output.state := if s if FUNCTION output.check...

  49. [57]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry doi empty output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = aft...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.