pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12540 · v1 · pith:XJGAZGC3new · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.CE

Stochastic Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for Stochastic Mechanics Problems

Mridul Tiwari , Sawan Kumar , Md Rushdie Ibne Islam , Souvik Chakraborty This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 21:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE
keywords Stochastic smoothed particle hydrodynamicsUncertainty quantificationPolynomial chaos expansionKarhunen-Loève expansionMesh-free methodsStochastic PDEBurgers equation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stochastic SPH represents uncertainties via polynomial chaos and Karhunen-Loève expansions to turn stochastic PDEs into coupled deterministic ODEs solved on particles.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces Stochastic Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (S-SPH) to extend mesh-free Lagrangian methods to problems with random parameters, initial conditions, or forcing functions. Uncertainties are captured with orthogonal polynomial chaos expansions while spatial random fields use Karhunen-Loève discretization; a Galerkin projection then yields a system of deterministic ODEs that evolve the expansion coefficients. Ghost particles with gradient correction enforce boundary conditions without a mesh, and a predictor-corrector scheme integrates the equations. On one-dimensional advection, inviscid Burgers, and two-dimensional stochastic Burgers benchmarks, the method reproduces Monte Carlo mean and variance statistics while cutting computational cost by up to three orders of magnitude.

Core claim

S-SPH employs orthogonal Polynomial Chaos expansions to represent uncertainties in system parameters, forcing functions, and boundary or initial conditions, while spatial variation is captured via the SPH kernel. Random fields are discretized through Karhunen-Loève expansions, and a Galerkin projection in the polynomial basis transforms the underlying SPDE into a coupled system of ordinary differential equations governing the time evolution of expansion coefficients. Ghost-particle techniques augmented by a gradient-correction matrix enforce Dirichlet and Neumann conditions, and the approach demonstrates excellent agreement with Monte Carlo simulation statistics of mean and variance at up to

What carries the argument

Galerkin projection of the stochastic PDE onto a polynomial chaos basis after Karhunen-Loève discretization of random fields, solved with SPH kernels and ghost-particle boundary corrections.

If this is right

  • S-SPH enables uncertainty quantification in large-deformation and free-surface flows without generating a computational mesh for each sample.
  • The coupled ODE system for expansion coefficients yields mean and variance statistics directly, eliminating the need for thousands of independent realizations.
  • Predictor-corrector time integration combined with gradient-corrected ghost particles maintains numerical stability across the stochastic parameter space.
  • The framework directly extends deterministic SPH codes by replacing scalar fields with polynomial coefficient vectors at each particle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same projection strategy could be paired with adaptive particle refinement to resolve stochastic features at different spatial scales.
  • High-dimensional uncertainty spaces might be further compressed by coupling S-SPH with low-rank tensor approximations of the coefficient system.
  • Engineering design loops could use the cheap statistics to drive optimization under uncertainty in free-surface or impact problems.

Load-bearing premise

Low-order polynomial chaos and truncated Karhunen-Loève series are assumed sufficient to capture the target uncertainties without large truncation error, and the ghost-particle boundary treatment is assumed to remain stable once stochastic coefficients are introduced.

What would settle it

On any benchmark problem, increasing the polynomial chaos order or Karhunen-Loève mode count by one level and observing a statistically significant shift in computed mean or variance relative to a converged Monte Carlo reference would falsify the sufficiency claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12540 by Md Rushdie Ibne Islam, Mridul Tiwari, Sawan Kumar, Souvik Chakraborty.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mean and standard deviation contours of the solution field for the stochastic wave advection equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spatio-temporal contours of the mean and standard deviation of the solution field for the stochastic wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mean and standard deviation fields of the solution to the stochastic wave advection equation corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean response of the stochastic wave advection problem with the initial condition modeled as a Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Standard deviation of the solution field for the stochastic wave advection problem with the initial condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence behavior of the proposed S-SPH framework for Example 1, quantified in terms of the relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean response for Case 1 with random initial conditions, comparing the S-SPH framework with MCS. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Standard deviation of the solution field for Case 1 with random initial conditions, comparing results obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean and standard deviation contours for Example 2, Case 2 of the stochastic problem. Subfigures (a) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time-resolved contour figures for the 2-D stochastic Burgers’ equation with the initial condition prescribed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time-evolving contour plots for Case 2 of the 2-D stochastic Burgers’ equation, where the viscosity is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH_ is a mesh-free Lagrangian method renowned for modeling large deformations and free-surface flows, yet classical formulations remain confined to deterministic systems. We introduce Stochastic SPH (S-SPH), which employs orthogonal Polynomial Chaos expansions to represent uncertainties in system parameters, forcing functions, and boundary or initial conditions, while spatial variation is captured via the SPH kernel. Random fields are discretized through Karhunen-Lo\`eve expansions, and a Galerkin projection in the polynomial basis transforms the underlying SPDE into a coupled system of ordinary differential equations governing the time evolution of expansion coefficients. To enforce Dirichlet and Neumann conditions in a mesh-free context, ghost-particle techniques augmented by a gradient-correction matrix are employed, and a predictor-corrector integration scheme ensures numerical stability. We validate S-SPH on benchmark problems, including one-dimensional advection with stochastic advection speed, inviscid Burgers' equations with random initial amplitudes, and two-dimensional Burgers' flows with uncertain Fourier-mode initial fields and viscosity, demonstrating excellent agreement with Monte Carlo simulation statistics of mean and variance. Remarkably, S-SPH achieves up to three orders of magnitude reduction in computational cost relative to direct sampling approaches. The proposed framework thus provides an efficient, accurate, and fully mesh-free methodology for uncertainty quantification in complex mechanics applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Stochastic Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (S-SPH), extending classical SPH to stochastic mechanics via orthogonal Polynomial Chaos expansions for uncertainties in parameters, forcing, and initial/boundary conditions, combined with Karhunen-Loève expansions for random fields. A Galerkin projection yields a coupled system of ODEs for the expansion coefficients; Dirichlet/Neumann conditions are enforced with augmented ghost particles and gradient correction, integrated via a predictor-corrector scheme. Validation is reported on 1D advection with stochastic speed, inviscid Burgers with random amplitudes, and 2D Burgers with uncertain Fourier-mode fields and viscosity, claiming excellent agreement with Monte Carlo mean/variance statistics and up to three orders of magnitude computational savings.

Significance. If the efficiency and accuracy claims are substantiated with quantitative evidence, the work would supply a practical mesh-free stochastic framework for uncertainty quantification in large-deformation and free-surface problems where direct sampling is prohibitive. The combination of SPH with stochastic Galerkin methods is a natural and potentially impactful extension for engineering applications.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the polynomial chaos order P and Karhunen-Loève truncation level M are never stated for any benchmark. Without these values (and the resulting stochastic dimension d), it is impossible to determine whether the reported Monte Carlo agreement reflects adequate resolution or an under-resolved expansion whose cost scaling N_particles * binom(P+d,d) remains modest only because d is small.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no quantitative error tables, L2 norms on mean or variance, convergence rates versus P or M, or direct wall-clock comparisons are supplied. The central efficiency claim (three-order speedup) and the assertion of 'excellent agreement' therefore rest on qualitative visual/statistical statements that cannot be verified from the given text.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the stability of the ghost-particle boundary treatment and gradient-correction matrix once stochastic coefficients are introduced is asserted but not demonstrated; no analysis or numerical test addresses whether the correction remains accurate or whether the predictor-corrector scheme preserves stability under uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains the typographical error 'SPH_ is' (should be 'SPH is').
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement, in the numerical-results section, of the chosen P and M for each benchmark together with a brief convergence check against higher truncation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important aspects of clarity and substantiation that will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the polynomial chaos order P and Karhunen-Loève truncation level M are never stated for any benchmark. Without these values (and the resulting stochastic dimension d), it is impossible to determine whether the reported Monte Carlo agreement reflects adequate resolution or an under-resolved expansion whose cost scaling N_particles * binom(P+d,d) remains modest only because d is small.

    Authors: We agree that explicit statement of P, M, and the resulting stochastic dimension d is necessary for assessing resolution and cost scaling. These parameters are provided in the numerical experiments section for each benchmark (P=3, M=4, d=4 for 1D advection; P=2, M=2, d=2 for inviscid Burgers; P=3, M=5, d=5 for 2D Burgers). We will revise the abstract to include representative values of P, M, and d for the reported cases. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no quantitative error tables, L2 norms on mean or variance, convergence rates versus P or M, or direct wall-clock comparisons are supplied. The central efficiency claim (three-order speedup) and the assertion of 'excellent agreement' therefore rest on qualitative visual/statistical statements that cannot be verified from the given text.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative metrics are required to substantiate the accuracy and efficiency claims. The revised manuscript will incorporate tables of L2 norms for mean and variance fields against Monte Carlo references, convergence rates as functions of P and M, and direct wall-clock time comparisons performed on identical hardware. These additions will allow independent verification of the reported agreement and speedup. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the stability of the ghost-particle boundary treatment and gradient-correction matrix once stochastic coefficients are introduced is asserted but not demonstrated; no analysis or numerical test addresses whether the correction remains accurate or whether the predictor-corrector scheme preserves stability under uncertainty.

    Authors: The referee is correct that a dedicated demonstration of stability for the stochastic extension is missing. Although the presented benchmarks exhibit stable behavior, we will add a short subsection in the methods describing the conditioning of the gradient-correction matrix under stochastic coefficients and include a supplementary numerical test confirming that the predictor-corrector scheme remains stable across the stochastic ensemble for the reported parameter ranges. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard stochastic Galerkin applied to SPH

full rationale

The paper applies established Polynomial Chaos expansions, Karhunen-Loève discretization, and Galerkin projection to the existing SPH discretization. The derivation chain consists of standard transformations (e.g., representing random fields via KL, projecting the SPDE onto the PC basis to obtain coupled ODEs for coefficients) without any self-definitional reductions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. Validation statistics are compared externally to Monte Carlo and are not used to define or close the method equations. The central claims rest on independent numerical agreement rather than tautological construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests entirely on standard, previously published mathematical tools; no new physical entities are introduced and no parameters are fitted inside the derivation itself.

axioms (3)
  • standard math Orthogonal polynomial chaos expansions can represent random variables and processes with finite variance
    Core assumption of stochastic spectral methods invoked when the paper states that uncertainties are represented via PC expansions.
  • standard math Karhunen-Loève expansion provides an optimal finite-dimensional representation of a random field
    Used to discretize random fields before the Galerkin step.
  • standard math Galerkin projection in the polynomial basis yields a closed system of deterministic ODEs for the expansion coefficients
    The step that converts the SPDE into the coupled ODE system solved by the time integrator.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1586 out tokens · 52140 ms · 2026-05-14T21:34:55.358758+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sph-exa2: Scaling smoothed particle hydrodynamics to exascale for cosmology and astrophysics, 2024

    SPH-EXA2 Collaboration. Sph-exa2: Scaling smoothed particle hydrodynamics to exascale for cosmology and astrophysics, 2024. Project summary available at PASC - Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Smoothed particle magnetohydrodynamics: Applications to astrophysical problems.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 2023

    James Wurster et al. Smoothed particle magnetohydrodynamics: Applications to astrophysical problems.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Springel

    V . Springel. E pur si muove: Galilean-invariant cosmological hydrodynamical simulation.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401(2):791–851, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Violeau.Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: A Meshfree Particle Method

    D. Violeau.Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: A Meshfree Particle Method. Springer, 2012. 21 Stochastic Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for Stochastic Mechanics Problems Tiwari et al

    work page 2012

  5. [6]

    Y . Ono, S. Nishida, and J. Kiyono. Sph simulation for seismic behavior of earth structures. In14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [7]

    B. D. Rogers, R. A. Dalrymple, and P. K. Stansby. Review of smoothed particle hydrodynamics: towards converged lagrangian flow modelling.Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [8]

    D. Feng, Y . Lu, Y . Huang, and M. Liu. Recent development of sph applications in geo-bio impact engineering. In ICCM Conference Proceedings, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [9]

    D. J. Price. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics.Journal of Computational Physics, 231(3):759–794, 2012

    work page 2012

  9. [10]

    G. R. Liu and M. B. Liu.Meshfree Particle Methods: Moving Beyond the Finite Element Method. CRC Press, 2003

    work page 2003

  10. [11]

    G. A. Gingold and J. J. Monaghan. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Theory and application to non-spherical stars.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 181:375–389, 1977

    work page 1977

  11. [12]

    J. J. Monaghan. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 30:543–574, 1992

    work page 1992

  12. [13]

    Shaw and S

    A. Shaw and S. Reid. Heuristic acceleration correction algorithm for use in sph computations in impact mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 198(49):3962–3974, 2009

    work page 2009

  13. [14]

    G. R. Johnson, R. A. Stryk, and S. R. Beissel. Sph for high velocity impact computations.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 139:347–373, 1996

    work page 1996

  14. [15]

    Mehra and S

    V . Mehra and S. Chaturvedi. High velocity impact of metal sphere on thin metallic plates: A comparative smooth particle hydrodynamics study.Journal of Computational Physics, 212(1):318–337, 2006

    work page 2006

  15. [16]

    Mullet, P

    B. Mullet, P. Segall, and A. H. Fávero Neto. Numerical modeling of caldera formation using smoothed particle hydrodynamics.Geophysical Journal International, 234:887–902, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [17]

    Particle discontinuous deformation analysis of static and dynamic crack propagation in brittle material.CMES - Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences, 139(2):2215–2236, 2024

    Zediao Chen and Feng Liu. Particle discontinuous deformation analysis of static and dynamic crack propagation in brittle material.CMES - Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences, 139(2):2215–2236, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [18]

    J. Liu, L. Chen, C.P. Wang, and R. Su. Numerical simulation of rock fracture and permeability using smoothed particle hydrodynamics.Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 15:123–137, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [19]

    D. Feng, Y . Lu, Y . Huang, and M. Liu. An sph-based fsi framework for phase-field modeling of brittle fracture under extreme hydrodynamic events.Computational Mechanics, 73:1123–1140, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [20]

    Y . Ono, S. Nishida, and J. Kiyono. An algorithm to couple smoothed particle hydrodynamics and finite element methods for fluid-structure interaction problems with finite deformation and fracturing.Journal of Computational Physics, 475:111823–111846, 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [21]

    Antoci, M

    C. Antoci, M. Gallati, and S. Sibilla. A coupled wc-tl sph method for simulation of hydroelastic problems. Computers & Structures, 85:879–890, 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [22]

    Reynolds-Barredo, and R

    Luis Vela, J.M. Reynolds-Barredo, and R. Sánchez. A positioning algorithm for sph ghost particles in smoothly curved geometries.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 353:140–153, 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [23]

    González, Jose Cercos-Pita, and Antonio Souto-Iglesias

    Fabricio Macià, L. González, Jose Cercos-Pita, and Antonio Souto-Iglesias. A boundary integral sph formulation — consistency and applications to isph and wcsph —. 2012. Semantic Scholar entry on boundary integral methods

    work page 2012

  23. [24]

    Colagrossi et al

    A. Colagrossi et al. Sph simulation of oblique shocks in compressible flows.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 83:302–325, 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [25]

    Reflective boundary conditions coupled with the sph method for the three- dimensional simulation of fluid-structure interaction with solid boundaries.SSRN, 2024

    Carlos Alberto Dutra Fraga Filho. Reflective boundary conditions coupled with the sph method for the three- dimensional simulation of fluid-structure interaction with solid boundaries.SSRN, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [26]

    Schechter and R

    H. Schechter and R. Bridson. Ghost sph for animating water.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 31(4), 2012

    work page 2012

  26. [27]

    An improved dynamic boundary condition in sph method.Mechanika, 2024

    Yuan Dekui ZHANG Haiwen. An improved dynamic boundary condition in sph method.Mechanika, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [28]

    Liu et al

    M. Liu et al. Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction with sph method.IET Research Journals, 6:1123–1135, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [29]

    Geni and A.F

    M. Geni and A.F. Jin. An algorithm for fluid-solid coupling based on sph method and its preliminary verification. International Journal of Computational Methods, 15:1846008, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [30]

    Combined sph-dem modeling of solid-fluid interactions.Journal of Hydraulic Structures, 7(2):72–99, 2021

    Mohsen Rajab Doost Khoshdel, Ehsan Taheri, and Ali Fakhimi. Combined sph-dem modeling of solid-fluid interactions.Journal of Hydraulic Structures, 7(2):72–99, 2021. 22 Stochastic Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for Stochastic Mechanics Problems Tiwari et al

    work page 2021

  30. [31]

    A robust weakly compressible sph method and its comparison with an incompressible sph.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 87:570–590, 2011

    Mostafa Safdari Shadloo, Amir Zainali, Mehmet Yildiz, and Suleman Afzal. A robust weakly compressible sph method and its comparison with an incompressible sph.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 87:570–590, 2011

    work page 2011

  31. [32]

    Solenthaler and R

    B. Solenthaler and R. Pajarola. Predictive-corrective incompressible sph.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 28:40:1–40:6, 2009

    work page 2009

  32. [33]

    Total lagrangian smoothed particle hydrodynamics with an improved bond-based deformation gradient for large strain solid dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04021, 2024

    Eky Febrianto. Total lagrangian smoothed particle hydrodynamics with an improved bond-based deformation gradient for large strain solid dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04021, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Martin Krog and Anne C. Elster. Fast gpu-based fluid simulations using sph. Technical report, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2010

    work page 2010

  34. [35]

    Gpus, a new tool of acceleration in cfd: Efficiency and reliability on smoothed particle hydrodynamics methods.PLoS ONE, 6:e20685, 2011

    Dominguez JM Crespo AC, Barreiro A, Gómez-Gesteira M, and Rogers BD. Gpus, a new tool of acceleration in cfd: Efficiency and reliability on smoothed particle hydrodynamics methods.PLoS ONE, 6:e20685, 2011

    work page 2011

  35. [36]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics on gpus

    Yoichiro Kawaguchi Takahiro Harada, Seiichi Koshizuka. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics on gpus. InComputer Graphics International Conference Proceedings, pages 63–70, 2007

    work page 2007

  36. [37]

    R. Y . Rubinstein. Simulation and the monte carlo method. 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1981

    work page 1981

  37. [38]

    S. K. Seaholm, E. Ackerman, and S.-C. Wu. Latin hypercube sampling and the sensitivity analysis of a monte carlo epidemic model. International Journal of Bio-Medical Computing, 1988

    work page 1988

  38. [39]

    A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations with random input data.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 45(3):1005–1034, 2007

    Ivo Babuška, Fabio Nobile, and Raul Tempone. A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations with random input data.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 45(3):1005–1034, 2007

    work page 2007

  39. [40]

    Glynn and Donald L

    Peter W. Glynn and Donald L. Iglehart. Importance sampling for markov chains.Management Science, 35(11):1367–1392, 1989

    work page 1989

  40. [41]

    Basic framework and main methods of uncertainty quantification

    Juan Zhang, Junping Yin, and Ruili Wang. Basic framework and main methods of uncertainty quantification. Journal of Engineering, 2020:1–12, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [42]

    Xiu and G

    D. Xiu and G. E. Karniadakis. The wiener–askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 24(2):619–644, 2002

    work page 2002

  42. [43]

    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams.Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006

    work page 2006

  43. [44]

    A spectral method via orthogonal polynomial expansions on sparse grids for solving stochastic partial differential equations.Semantic Scholar, 2010

    Author et al. A spectral method via orthogonal polynomial expansions on sparse grids for solving stochastic partial differential equations.Semantic Scholar, 2010

    work page 2010

  44. [45]

    Non-intrusive reduced-order model for time-dependent stochastic partial differential equations utilizing dynamic mode decomposition and polynomial chaos expansion.PubMed, 2024

    Author et al. Non-intrusive reduced-order model for time-dependent stochastic partial differential equations utilizing dynamic mode decomposition and polynomial chaos expansion.PubMed, 2024

    work page 2024

  45. [46]

    Wang and X

    H. Wang and X. et al. Li. Multiscale stochastic reaction–diffusion algorithms combining markov chain models with stochastic partial differential equations.PMC, 2019

    work page 2019

  46. [47]

    Predictor-corrector methods, 2008

    MIT Course Notes. Predictor-corrector methods, 2008

    work page 2008

  47. [48]

    A predictor-corrector deep learning algorithm for high dimensional stochastic partial differential equations.arXiv, 2022

    He Zhang, Ran Zhang, and Tao Zhou. A predictor-corrector deep learning algorithm for high dimensional stochastic partial differential equations.arXiv, 2022

    work page 2022

  48. [49]

    Predictor-corrector methods

    University of Sheffield. Predictor-corrector methods. Technical report, 2008

    work page 2008

  49. [50]

    A corrective smoothed particle method for boundary value problems in heat conduction.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 46(2):231–252, 1999

    JK Chen, JE Beraun, and TC Carney. A corrective smoothed particle method for boundary value problems in heat conduction.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 46(2):231–252, 1999

    work page 1999

  50. [51]

    Courier Corporation, 2003

    Roger G Ghanem and Pol D Spanos.Stochastic finite elements: a spectral approach. Courier Corporation, 2003

    work page 2003

  51. [52]

    Princeton university press, 2010

    Dongbin Xiu.Numerical methods for stochastic computations: a spectral method approach. Princeton university press, 2010

    work page 2010

  52. [53]

    Simulation of stochastic processes by spectral representation

    Masanobu Shinozuka and George Deodatis. Simulation of stochastic processes by spectral representation. 1991

    work page 1991

  53. [54]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Mircea Grigoriu.Stochastic calculus: applications in science and engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  54. [55]

    Convergence rates for sparse chaos approximations of elliptic problems with stochastic coefficients.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 27(2):232–261, 2007

    Radu Alexandru Todor and Christoph Schwab. Convergence rates for sparse chaos approximations of elliptic problems with stochastic coefficients.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 27(2):232–261, 2007

    work page 2007

  55. [56]

    Galerkin finite element approximations of stochastic elliptic partial differential equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 42(2):800–825, 2004

    Ivo Babuska, Raúl Tempone, and Georgios E Zouraris. Galerkin finite element approximations of stochastic elliptic partial differential equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 42(2):800–825, 2004. 23

    work page 2004