Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

A comparative study of uncertainty quantification methods in gust response analysis of a Lift-Plus-Cruise eVTOL aircraft wing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that for a Lift-Plus-Cruise eVTOL wing under stochastic gust and flight conditions, kriging most accurately estimates risk measures of maximum tip displacement while non-intrusive polynomial chaos most accurately…

desk verdict Useful case study comparing UQ methods on an eVTOL gust problem, but the kriging-as-ground-truth benchmark undermines the central ranking. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03964 v1 pith:OXXUKARO submitted 2025-01-07 cs.CE

Bingran Wang , Michael Warner , Aoran Tian , Luca Scotzniovsky , John T. Hwang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords uncertaintyquantificationgustresponseeVTOLwingkrigingpolynomialchaosunivariatedimensionreductionaeroelasticityriskmeasures
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 tries to establish that, on a three-dimensional uncertainty quantification problem for the gust response of a Lift-Plus-Cruise eVTOL wing, the best UQ method is not universal: kriging gives the most accurate estimates of mean, standard deviation, and 95th percentile for maximum tip displacement, while non-intrusive polynomial chaos (NIPC) does the same for average strain energy. It also claims that both structural quantities vary a lot even when the three uncertain inputs (flight velocity, gust length, and peak gust velocity) have modest uniform ranges. The practical stake is that engineers can choose UQ methods based on the quantity of interest and risk measure, using cheap dimension-reduction methods when possible, rather than defaulting to one method. The paper's benchmark for these rankings is a 500-sample kriging surrogate.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an unsteady aeroelastic simulation built from a one-way coupling between a panel-method aerodynamic solver and a Reissner-Mindlin shell structural solver, driven by a one-minus-cosine discrete gust profile, together with five non-intrusive UQ methods wrapped around it: non-intrusive polynomial chaos, kriging, Monte Carlo, univariate dimension reduction, and gradient-enhanced univariate dimension reduction. The one-way coupling means the aerodynamic pressure field is computed first and then passed to the structural solver, avoiding iterative feedback. A graph-based computational framework with automatic differentiation supplies the gradients that make GUDR efficient, and the risk measures—mean, standard deviation, and 95th percentile—are estimated for maximum tip displacement and average strain energy. The 500-sample kriging surrogate acts as the reference truth for all convergence comparisons.

What would settle it

Take the same one-way coupled panel-method/shell solver and the same three uniform input distributions, then run an independent Monte Carlo sample of 10,000 solver evaluations; estimate mean, standard deviation, and 95th percentile of maximum tip displacement and average strain energy, and compare with the paper's reported ground truth values (0.0843 m, 0.0179 m, 0.111 m and 208 J, 60.9 J, 313 J). If the independent estimates differ by more than the paper's reported relative errors (about 1e-2), the 500-sample kriging benchmark and the resulting method ranking are not converged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a method-by-quantity interaction in a low-dimensional (three-input) gust-response UQ setting. For maximum tip displacement, whose response surface contains a max operation and is highly nonlinear, the interpolation-based kriging method outperformed NIPC on all three risk measures; for average strain energy, whose response is smoother but right-skewed, NIPC outperformed kriging. Univariate dimension reduction (UDR) and its gradient-enhanced version (GUDR) behaved better than kriging for strain-energy risk measures but worse for tip displacement, and Monte Carlo underperformed across the board because the input dimensionality is only three. The ground truth against which these rankings are drawn is a 500-sample kriging surrogate, and the paper reports that all methods reach relative errors below 1e-2 in most cases.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the 500-sample kriging surrogate used as the ground truth is accurate enough for all three risk measures, especially the 95th percentile of the right-skewed average strain energy distribution; if that benchmark is biased or not converged, the paper's ranking—particularly kriging's stated superiority for maximum tip displacement—is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For low-dimensional gust-response UQ problems like this one, kriging and NIPC are both effective, and the choice should be guided by the output's smoothness: kriging for max-type nonlinear responses, NIPC for smooth responses.
  • UDR and GUDR are low-cost alternatives that give accurate mean estimates; GUDR brings the standard deviation and 95th percentile estimates closer to the benchmark when gradient evaluations are cheap.
  • The 95th percentile of average strain energy is the hardest quantity to estimate reliably because the distribution is right-skewed, so reliability-focused gust analyses should add tail-oriented sampling.
  • Because both QoIs show substantial variability under modest input ranges, gust and flight uncertainties should be included in eVTOL wing design studies, not treated as negligible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves untested: replace the 500-sample kriging ground truth with a much larger independent Monte Carlo or quasi-Monte Carlo sample; if the ranking flips, the paper's method-by-QoI conclusions would need revision.
  • The results suggest a hybrid UQ workflow for a single wing analysis: run a cheap smoothness diagnostic on each output, then assign kriging to max-type outputs and NIPC to smooth outputs, and use GUDR as a low-cost fallback.
  • The one-way coupling limits the comparison to a regime where structural feedback into aerodynamics is negligible; under stronger gusts or more flexible wings, where aeroelastic feedback matters, the relative performance of the five methods could change.
  • A direct test of the paper's distributional claim would be to report full PDFs or higher moments of the two QoIs and check whether any method captures the right tail of strain energy, not just the three risk measures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a three-dimensional uncertainty quantification problem for the gust response of a Lift-Plus-Cruise eVTOL wing, using an unsteady aeroelastic model with one-way coupling between a panel-method aerodynamic solver and a shell-based structural solver. It compares five non-intrusive UQ methods (non-intrusive polynomial chaos, kriging, Monte Carlo, univariate dimension reduction, and gradient-enhanced univariate dimension reduction) on three risk measures (mean, standard deviation, 95th percentile) for two quantities of interest (maximum tip displacement and average strain energy). The central claims are that kriging outperforms NIPC for maximum tip displacement, NIPC excels for average strain energy, and both QoIs exhibit significant variability even though the input ranges are relatively small.

Significance. If the comparative ranking is established, the paper offers practically useful guidance for selecting UQ methods in gust-response analysis of flexible aircraft, a class of problems where such comparisons are still scarce. It also demonstrates the use of automatic differentiation for gradient-enhanced UQ on a coupled aeroelastic model. However, the central ranking is currently supported only by a benchmark that is itself a kriging surrogate, so the primary methodological comparison is not yet credible. The observation that UQ-method performance depends on the QoI and risk measure is plausible and worth publishing, but only after the benchmark issue is resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III (Ground truth)] The sentence 'The ground truth results were estimated using the kriging method with 500 sample points' makes the benchmark for all relative-error comparisons and Table 2 a kriging surrogate. Because kriging is one of the evaluated methods, the claim that 'kriging outperformed NIPC in estimating the risk measures for maximum tip displacement' is circular: kriging is being measured against a target produced by the same method family, while NIPC is measured against a kriging target. Please replace or supplement the benchmark with an independent estimate (for example, a large Monte Carlo sample, a tensor-grid quadrature, or a different surrogate family) and show that the kriging-500 estimate is converged, especially for the 95th percentile of the right-skewed average strain energy distribution.
  2. [Section III, Figs. 6 and 7] The convergence plots report relative errors with respect to the kriging-500 ground truth, but they contain no error bars or repeated runs, and the ground truth itself is a single estimate. Without a measure of the ground truth's own uncertainty, the assertion that all methods achieve relative errors below 1e-2 is not supported. Please provide a convergence study for the benchmark (e.g., kriging with 1000 and 2000 samples, or a Monte Carlo estimate with 10^5 samples) and, if possible, error bars on the relative-error curves.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 5] The PDFs used to characterize the QoIs, including the pronounced right tail of average strain energy, appear to be derived from the same kriging-500 surrogate. The statements about 'significant variability' and about the 95th percentile being harder to estimate for strain energy therefore rest on the surrogate's tail fidelity. Please verify that the kriging-500 PDF is converged (for example, by comparing with a kriging-2000 or a large Monte Carlo histogram) or present a non-surrogate estimate of the tail statistics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I (Introduction)] There is a typo: 'Monte Calro' should be 'Monte Carlo'.
  2. [Section II.A] The heading 'Unsteady aeroeleastic simulation' contains a typo; 'aeroeleastic' should be 'aeroelastic'.
  3. [Section III (Numerical Results)] The phrase 'the right-trailed PDF of average strain energy' should be 'the right-tailed PDF'.
  4. [Section III, Figs. 6 and 7] The horizontal axis is labeled 'No.' and 'No. of equivalent model evaluations'; please clarify how the equivalent model evaluations are counted for each method, including NIPC, UDR, and GUDR, so that the comparison is transparent.
  5. [Section III (Ground truth)] The choice of 500 sample points for the ground-truth kriging model is not justified in the text; a brief convergence check or a reference to a prior convergence study would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central method ranking rests on a kriging-500 benchmark, making kriging's apparent advantage partly self-referential.

  1. other [Section III, Numerical Results – ground truth definition and kriging/NIPC comparison (Figs. 6-7, Table 2)]
    "The ground truth results were estimated using the kriging method with 500 sample points, providing a highly accurate benchmark for comparison. ... Specifically, kriging outperformed NIPC in estimating the risk measures for maximum tip displacement, while NIPC excelled in estimating those for average strain energy."

    The relative errors in Figs. 6 and 7 are computed against the kriging-500 estimates in Table 2. The 'ground truth' is therefore a kriging surrogate: kriging's error measures self-consistency between kriging fits at different sample sizes, while NIPC's error measures agreement with a kriging target. The claim that 'kriging outperformed NIPC' is thus not a comparison against the true aeroelastic statistics but against a benchmark produced by the same method family being promoted. Any bias in the kriging-500 estimates (e.g., under-representing the right tail of average strain energy) is inherited by the comparison, favoring methods that share kriging's bias. The ranking is partly self-referential, though not a full definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The only significant circularity concern is the kriging-500 ground truth. The paper is transparent that the benchmark is a kriging estimate, but it calls it 'highly accurate' without an independent high-fidelity Monte Carlo or quadrature check. Because kriging is both the benchmark and one of the methods being ranked, the headline result that 'kriging outperformed NIPC' for maximum tip displacement is partly an artifact of the self-referential benchmark; NIPC is being measured against a kriging target. The other UQ method comparisons (MC, UDR, GUDR) are standard and not circular. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (GUDR [17], SMT [33], CSDL [24], graph acceleration [26, 27]) are used as implementation references, not as load-bearing justifications for the central ranking, so they do not raise the score further. The 'significant variability' claim also inherits the kriging-500 benchmark concern because Table 2 is the kriging-500 estimate, but this is the same issue rather than a separate circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central comparison rests on modeling choices and the kriging benchmark rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (4)
  • Flight velocity range = U(40, 60) m/s
    Chosen based on typical eVTOL operational scenarios; no data source given, and it directly controls the simulated response variability.
  • Gust length range = U(4, 8) m
    Assumed uniform range for spatial gust extent; no measurement basis provided.
  • Gust peak velocity range = U(5, 15) m/s
    Assumed uniform range for gust intensity; no measurement basis provided.
  • Ground truth kriging sample count = 500
    Selected as the converged benchmark; the choice is not justified by a convergence study of the benchmark itself.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Uniform and independent input distributions
    Section II.C states each input is modeled as independent uniform; no empirical evidence for these distributions.
  • domain assumption One-minus-cosine discrete gust model
    Section II.B defines the gust profile; this simplified model omits turbulence spectra.
  • domain assumption One-way aero-structural coupling
    Section II.A computes aerodynamic pressure first and passes it to the structure, ignoring feedback of structural motion on the aerodynamics.
  • domain assumption Zero structural damping
    Section II.B notes oscillation amplitude stays constant because damping is not included; this affects peak response magnitudes.
  • domain assumption Potential-flow panel method is adequate for gust response
    Section II.A uses an unsteady panel method; no viscous or stall effects are included.
  • ad hoc to paper Kriging with 500 samples is accurate enough for ground truth
    Section III defines the benchmark without independent verification against a different high-fidelity method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A comparative study of uncertainty quantification methods in gust response analysis of a Lift-Plus-Cruise eVTOL aircraft wing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXXUKARO

@misc{pith2026250103964,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A comparative study of uncertainty quantification methods in gust response analysis of a Lift-Plus-Cruise eVTOL aircraft wing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXXUKARO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03964}
}
read the original abstract

Wind gusts, being inherently stochastic, can significantly influence the safety and performance of aircraft. This study investigates a three-dimensional uncertainty quantification (UQ) problem to explore how uncertainties in gust and flight conditions affect the structural response of a Lift-Plus-Cruise eVTOL aircraft wing. The analysis employs an unsteady aeroelastic model with a one-way coupling between a panel method aerodynamic solver and a shell analysis structural solver to predict the wing's response under varying conditions. Additionally, this paper presents a comparative evaluation of commonly used non-intrusive UQ methods, including non-intrusive polynomial chaos, kriging, Monte Carlo, univariate dimension reduction, and gradient-enhanced univariate dimension reduction. These methods are assessed based on their effectiveness in estimating various risk measures-mean, standard deviation, and 95th percentile-of critical structural response outputs such as maximum tip displacement and average strain energy. The numerical results reveal significant variability in the structural response outputs, even under relatively small ranges of uncertain inputs. This highlights the sensitivity of the system to uncertainties in gust and flight conditions. Furthermore, the performance of the implemented UQ methods varies significantly depending on the specific risk measures and the quantity of interest being analyzed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uncertaintyquantificationinaeroelasticity,

    Beran,P.,Stanford,B.,andSchrock,C.,“Uncertaintyquantificationinaeroelasticity,” Annualreviewoffluidmechanics ,Vol.49, No. 1, 2017, pp. 361–386

    2017

  2. [2]

    Communicating forecast uncertainty: Public perception of weather forecast uncertainty,

    Joslyn, S., and Savelli, S., “Communicating forecast uncertainty: Public perception of weather forecast uncertainty,” Meteorological Applications, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2010, pp. 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.190

    doi:10.1002/met.190 2010

  3. [3]

    Cascading modeluncertaintyfrommediumrangeweatherforecasts(10days)througharainfall-runoffmodeltofloodinundationpredictions within the European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS),

    Pappenberger, F., Beven, K. J., Hunter, N. M., Bates, P. D., Gouweleeuw, B. T., Thielen, J., and de Roo, A. P. J., “Cascading modeluncertaintyfrommediumrangeweatherforecasts(10days)througharainfall-runoffmodeltofloodinundationpredictions within the European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS),”Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2005, pp. 381–...

    work page doi:10.5194/hess-9-381-2005 2005

  4. [4]

    Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods,

    Hüllermeier, E., and Waegeman, W., “Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods,”Machine Learning, Vol. 110, 2021, pp. 457–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-021-05946-3

    doi:10.1007/s10994-021-05946-3 2021

  5. [5]

    Analytical uncertainty quantification for modal frequencies with structural parameter uncertainty using a Gaussian process metamodel,

    Wan, H.-P., Mao, Z., Todd, M. D., and Ren, W.-X., “Analytical uncertainty quantification for modal frequencies with structural parameter uncertainty using a Gaussian process metamodel,”Engineering Structures, Vol. 75, 2014, pp. 577–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.028 2014

  6. [6]

    Uncertainty aggregation and reduction in structure–material performance prediction,

    Hu, Z., Mahadevan, S., and Ao, D., “Uncertainty aggregation and reduction in structure–material performance prediction,” Computational Mechanics, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2018, pp. 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-017-1448-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-017-1448-6 2018

  7. [7]

    Monte Carlo information-reuse approach to aircraft conceptual design optimization under uncertainty,

    Ng, L. W., and Willcox, K. E., “Monte Carlo information-reuse approach to aircraft conceptual design optimization under uncertainty,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2016, pp. 427–438. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033352

    work page doi:10.2514/1.c033352 2016

  8. [8]

    Graph-accelerated large-scale multidisciplinary design optimization underuncertaintyofalaser-beam-poweredaircraft,

    Wang, B., Orndorff, N. C., Joshy, A. J., and Hwang, J. T., “Graph-accelerated large-scale multidisciplinary design optimization underuncertaintyofalaser-beam-poweredaircraft,” AIAASCITECH2024Forum ,2024,p.0169. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024- 0169

    doi:10.2514/6.2024- 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Uncertainty propagation in flight performance of multirotor with parametric and model uncertainties,

    Lim, D., Kim, H., and Yee, K., “Uncertainty propagation in flight performance of multirotor with parametric and model uncertainties,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 122, 2022, p. 107398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2022.107398

    2022

  2. [10]

    Application of kriging method to structural reliability problems,

    Kaymaz, I., “Application of kriging method to structural reliability problems,”Structural safety, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2005, pp. 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2004.09.001

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    A single-loop kriging surrogate modeling for time-dependent reliability analysis,

    Hu, Z., and Mahadevan, S., “A single-loop kriging surrogate modeling for time-dependent reliability analysis,”Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138, No. 6, 2016, p. 061406. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033428

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    A non-intrusive polynomial chaos method for uncertainty propagation in CFD simulations,

    Hosder, S., Walters, R., and Perez, R., “A non-intrusive polynomial chaos method for uncertainty propagation in CFD simulations,”44th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 2006, p. 891. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-891

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    Nonlinear propagation of orbit uncertainty using non-intrusive polynomial chaos,

    Jones, B. A., Doostan, A., and Born, G. H., “Nonlinear propagation of orbit uncertainty using non-intrusive polynomial chaos,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2013, pp. 430–444. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.57599. 10

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Topology optimization under uncertainty via non-intrusive polynomial chaos expansion,

    Keshavarzzadeh, V., Fernandez, F., and Tortorelli, D. A., “Topology optimization under uncertainty via non-intrusive polynomial chaos expansion,”Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 318, 2017, pp. 120–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2017.01.019

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Active subspace methods in theory and practice: applications to kriging surfaces,

    Constantine, P. G., Dow, E., and Wang, Q., “Active subspace methods in theory and practice: applications to kriging surfaces,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2014, pp. A1500–A1524. https://doi.org/10.1137/130916138

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Applications of generalized method of moments estimation,

    Wooldridge, J. M., “Applications of generalized method of moments estimation,”Journal of Economic perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2001, pp. 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.87

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    A gradient-enhanced univariate dimension reduction method for uncertainty propagation,

    Wang, B., Orndorff, N. C., Sperry, M., and Hwang, J. T., “A gradient-enhanced univariate dimension reduction method for uncertainty propagation,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 155, 2024, p. 109602

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gust loads with uncertainty due to imprecise gust velocity spectra,

    Pettit, C., Hajj, M., and Beran, P., “Gust loads with uncertainty due to imprecise gust velocity spectra,” 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2007, p. 1965

    2007

  11. [19]

    Efficient modelling of a nonlinear gust loads process for uncertainty quantification of highly flexible aircraft,

    Cook, R. G., Wales, C., Gaitonde, A., Jones, D., and Cooper, J. E., “Efficient modelling of a nonlinear gust loads process for uncertainty quantification of highly flexible aircraft,”2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2018, p. 1681

    2018

  12. [20]

    Time-domain structural optimization of eVTOL wings under gust loads using automated adjoint methods,

    Xiang, R., “Time-domain structural optimization of eVTOL wings under gust loads using automated adjoint methods,” Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of an eVTOL Aircraft using Comprehensive Analysis,

    Sarojini, D., Ruh, M. L., Joshy, A. J., Yan, J., Ivanov, A. K., Scotzniovsky, L., Fletcher, A. H., Orndorff, N. C., Sperry, M., Gandarillas, V. E., et al., “Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of an eVTOL Aircraft using Comprehensive Analysis,”AIAA SCITECH 2023 F...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Tilt-wing eVTOL takeoff trajectory optimization,

    Chauhan, S. S., and Martins, J. R., “Tilt-wing eVTOL takeoff trajectory optimization,”Journal of aircraft, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2020, pp. 93–112

    2020

  15. [23]

    Analytic Prediction of Rotor Broadband Noise with Serrated Trailing Edges with Applications to Urban Air Mobility Aircraft,

    Li, S. K., and Lee, S., “Analytic Prediction of Rotor Broadband Noise with Serrated Trailing Edges with Applications to Urban Air Mobility Aircraft,”Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A graph-based methodology for constructing computationalmodelsthatautomatesadjoint-basedsensitivityanalysis,

    Gandarillas, V., Joshy, A. J., Sperry, M. Z., Ivanov, A. K., and Hwang, J. T., “A graph-based methodology for constructing computationalmodelsthatautomatesadjoint-basedsensitivityanalysis,” StructuralandMultidisciplinaryOptimization ,Vol.67, No. 5, 2024, p. 76

    2024

  17. [25]

    Automatic adjoint sensitivity analysis of models for large-scale multidisciplinary design optimization,

    Sperry, M., Kondap, K., and Hwang, J. T., “Automatic adjoint sensitivity analysis of models for large-scale multidisciplinary design optimization,”AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, 2023, p. 3721. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-3721

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Accelerating model evaluations in uncertainty propagation on tensor grids using computational graph transformations,

    Wang, B., Sperry, M., Gandarillas, V. E., and Hwang, J. T., “Accelerating model evaluations in uncertainty propagation on tensor grids using computational graph transformations,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 145, 2024, p. 108843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2023.108843

    2024

  19. [27]

    Graph-accelerated non-intrusive polynomial chaos expansion using partially tensor-structuredquadraturerulesforuncertaintyquantification,

    Wang, B., Orndorff, N. C., and Hwang, J. T., “Graph-accelerated non-intrusive polynomial chaos expansion using partially tensor-structuredquadraturerulesforuncertaintyquantification,” AerospaceScienceandTechnology ,Vol.155,2024,p.109607

    2024

  20. [28]

    Katz, J.,Low-speed aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    A., and Magnus, A

    Epton, M. A., and Magnus, A. E., “PAN AIR: A computer program for predicting subsonic or supersonic linear potential flows about arbitrary configurations using a higher order panel method. Volume 1: Theory document (version 3.0),” Tech. rep., NASA, 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    Calculation of potential flow about arbitrary bodies,

    Hess, J. L., and Smith, A. O., “Calculation of potential flow about arbitrary bodies,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 8, 1967, pp. 1–138

    1967

  23. [31]

    Program VSAERO theory Document: a computer program for calculating nonlinear aerodynamic characteristics of arbitrary configurations,

    Maskew, B., “Program VSAERO theory Document: a computer program for calculating nonlinear aerodynamic characteristics of arbitrary configurations,” Tech. rep., NASA, 1987

    1987

  24. [32]

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

    Feinberg, J., and Langtangen, H. P., “Chaospy: An open source tool for designing methods of uncertainty quantification,” Journal of Computational Science, Vol. 11, 2015, pp. 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives,

    Bouhlel, M. A., Hwang, J. T., Bartoli, N., Lafage, R., Morlier, J., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives,”Advances in Engineering Software, 2019, p. 102662. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. advengsoft.2019.03.005

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    A univariate dimension-reduction method for multi-dimensional integration in stochastic mechanics,

    Rahman, S., and Xu, H., “A univariate dimension-reduction method for multi-dimensional integration in stochastic mechanics,” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2004, pp. 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2004.04.003. 11

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.