pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.19841 · v2 · submitted 2025-05-26 · 📊 stat.ML · cs.LG· physics.comp-ph

Efficient Deconvolution in Populational Inverse Problems

Arnaud Vadeboncoeur , Mark Girolami , Andrew M. Stuart This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 14:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ML cs.LGphysics.comp-ph
keywords inverse problemsdeconvolutionparameter estimationnoise estimationpopulation datagradient descentsurrogate modelsactive learning
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

A method jointly deconvolves unknown noise and infers parameter distributions from large populations of observations.

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

The paper addresses the challenge of inferring distributions over physical model parameters when observations are corrupted by unknown noise, a problem known as blind deconvolution. It proposes to use data from many different instances of the same physical process to solve for both the parameter distribution and the noise distribution at the same time. This is achieved by defining a loss that measures how well the model matches the data for given parameters and noise, then minimizing it jointly with a modified gradient descent that uses the structure of the noise model. An active learning approach with surrogate models is added to make the optimization efficient even for complex simulations. If successful, this allows solving inverse problems in settings where noise statistics are not known in advance but ensemble data is available.

Core claim

The authors establish a methodology for populational inverse problems that simultaneously deconvolves the unknown observational noise distribution and identifies the distribution over model parameters by minimizing a coupled loss function using a modified gradient descent algorithm that exploits noise model structure, combined with an active learning scheme based on adaptive empirical measures for efficient surrogate modeling of parameter-to-solution maps.

What carries the argument

Coupled minimization of a loss over parameter inputs and parameterized observational noise, solved by modified gradient descent leveraging noise structure, plus active learning with adaptive empirical measures for surrogate accuracy in regions of interest.

If this is right

  • The approach enables parameter distribution recovery without prior knowledge of the noise distribution.
  • It accelerates computation for black-box or expensive physical models through targeted surrogate training.
  • It supports automatic differentiation even for nondifferentiable code via the surrogate.
  • Applications include porous medium flow, elastodynamics, and atmospheric dynamics models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This joint estimation might generalize to other inverse problems where data comes from repeated experiments under similar conditions.
  • Extending the noise parameterization could allow handling more complex noise types like correlated or non-Gaussian without separate calibration.
  • Testing on synthetic data with controlled noise would verify if the recovered distributions match the generating ones.

Load-bearing premise

There exists a parameterized form for the observational noise distribution that allows stable joint optimization with the model parameters via the modified gradient descent.

What would settle it

Generate synthetic observations from known parameter distributions and a known noise distribution, then check if the method recovers both distributions to within a small error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19841 by Andrew M. Stuart, Arnaud Vadeboncoeur, Mark Girolami.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Five solutions u to the porous medium flow problem (dashed lines) and corresponding observation vectors y with 50 observation locations (scatter points). Data Specifics. The data for this example is generated using a log-normal distribution on z ∈ R+ as µ(α † ) = log N (m† ,(σ † ) 2 ) with values (m† , σ† ) = (0.5, 0.25). In this example the noise distribution η = N (0,(γ † ) 2 I) with γ † = 0.05. Learning… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Loss functions (O1a) (cut-gradient) with γ ′ fixed at 0.08, and (O2a) (standard-gradient). We average the loss function over 100 sets of 100 projection angles θ ∼ U(S dy−1 ). flows (A1), (A2) randomizing initialization and data. We study both approaches, while varying the N from 101 to 104 , for various ground truth values of γ † . We note that we also learn α = (m, σ) during this procedure. We use the Ada… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scaled diagonal noise estimation for the porous medium flow problem obtained though stochastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Five solutions of the porous medium flow problem with Wittle-Matérn process noise with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Whittle-Matérn noise estimation for the porous medium flow problem obtained though stochastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Deconvolution and distributional inversion for the 1D porous medium flow problem with Wittle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Snapshot of displacement of a sampled elastodynamic model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Sample solution with dotted observation locations. (b) Solution with continuous time obser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Data-fit Loss and Surrogate model supervised loss on empirical measure. Only the first 2500 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Convergence of the material properties’ distribution for (a) material random field amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Sample solution with dotted observation locations. (b) Solution and observational data across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Data-fit Loss and Surrogate model supervised loss on empirical measure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Convergence of the material properties’ distribution (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) Sample noise random field. (b) Solution and observational data across time at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Data-fit Loss and Surrogate model supervised loss on empirical measure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Convergence of material properties measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The first dimension of the Lorenz 96 single scale model for (a) 100 time unites, and (b) the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Data Loss function, (b) model G ϕ loss function. (b) the evolution of the condition number of the estimated covariance. 6.1.2. Neural Network Surrogate Model Regularization In both the following examples, we make use of a Lipschitz constrained MLP for Gτ to enforce smoothness in the predictions [89]. This has been found to be useful due to the high stochasticity of the data-pairs as we randomize over … view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Convergence of parameters α chaotic atmospheric dynamics: u˙ k = uk−1(uk+1 − uk−2) − uk + F, (33a) uk+K = uk, k = 1 . . . K (33b) where s(t) = u1:k(t) and the µ(α) distribution is over the parameter z = (F). Data Specifics. The feature function φ(s) = {uk} K k=1, {ukuj |k, j ∈ N, 1 ≤ k ≤ K, 1 ≤ j ≤ k}  , (34) collects per-dimension means and covariances. We set K = 6, hence φ : R 6 7→ R 27; we fix c = 10… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: (a) The learned Γ ⋆ . (b) Empirical covariance of the feature function for random initializations of trajectories for m = 10 (the mode of µ † ). Solver Specifics. We use a time step of 10−2Ut with a fourth order Runge-Kutta scheme. Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: 100 (a) and 20 (b) time unites of the first dimension of Lorenz 96 multi-scale showing both the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: (a) Data Loss function and the model G ϕ loss function. (b) the evolution of the condition number of the estimated covariance. Data Specifics. We specify the observed variables and feature function as w = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The data sample colour indicates the sampling index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Convergence of parameters α. The blue shaded area denotes the training pairs acquisition after which we stop adding training pairs to P T z,y. true data generating initial measure is N (0, 5 2 I), and in the inference scheme we misspecify the initial state measure Ps0 to be N (0, 8 2 I). The surrogate model G ϕ and Covariance regular￾izer are specified in Subsection 6.1. The regularizer h(α) = 1/(2·5 2 )∥… view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: (a) The learned Γ ⋆ . (b) Empirical covariance of the feature function for random initializations of trajectories for z = m† = (mF, mh, mb) † . learning iterations progress, the colour bar indicates the gradient-step number t at which the sample was taken. We can see from this that the learning efforts are eventually concentrated on regions of high density under µ † . The average relative errors on the la… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This work is focussed on the inversion task of inferring the distribution over parameters of interest leading to multiple sets of observations. The potential to solve such distributional inversion problems is driven by increasing availability of data, but a major roadblock is blind deconvolution, arising when the observational noise distribution is unknown. However, when data originates from collections of physical systems, a population, it is possible to leverage this information to perform deconvolution. To this end, we propose a methodology leveraging large data sets of observations, collected from different instantiations of the same physical processes, to simultaneously deconvolve the data corrupting noise distribution, and to identify the distribution over model parameters defining the physical processes. A parameter-dependent mathematical model of the physical process is employed. A loss function characterizing the match between the observed data and the output of the mathematical model is defined; it is minimized as a function of the both the parameter inputs to the model of the physics and the parameterized observational noise. This coupled problem is addressed with a modified gradient descent algorithm that leverages specific structure in the noise model. Furthermore, a new active learning scheme is proposed, based on adaptive empirical measures, to train a surrogate model to be accurate in parameter regions of interest; this approach accelerates computation and enables automatic differentiation of black-box, potentially nondifferentiable, code computing parameter-to-solution maps. The proposed methodology is demonstrated on porous medium flow, damped elastodynamics, and simplified models of atmospheric dynamics.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a methodology for populational inverse problems that uses large datasets of observations from multiple instantiations of the same physical process to simultaneously deconvolve an unknown observational noise distribution and recover the distribution over model parameters. A parameter-dependent physics model is combined with a loss function that is minimized jointly over the physics parameters and a parameterized noise model via a modified gradient descent algorithm exploiting noise-model structure; an active-learning scheme based on adaptive empirical measures trains a surrogate model for efficiency and enables differentiation of black-box codes. The approach is demonstrated on porous-medium flow, damped elastodynamics, and simplified atmospheric-dynamics models.

Significance. If the joint optimization is stable and the noise parameterization is sufficiently expressive without introducing misspecification bias, the method would provide a practical route to blind deconvolution in settings where population-level data are available, which is relevant to uncertainty quantification and data-driven physics. The surrogate-based active learning component is a clear strength for computational tractability with expensive or nondifferentiable forward maps.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method] Method description (around the coupled loss minimization): The claim that the modified gradient descent stably solves the joint minimization over physics parameters θ and noise parameters φ rests on the unstated assumptions that the chosen parametric noise family is rich enough to avoid misspecification bias and that the resulting non-convex objective has no spurious local minima that would prevent recovery of the correct (θ, φ) pair. No identifiability analysis, regularization argument, or landscape characterization is supplied to support these conditions for the three physical examples; if either assumption fails, the simultaneous deconvolution and parameter-distribution recovery cannot be guaranteed.
  2. [Numerical examples] Demonstration sections: The abstract and method outline provide no quantitative error analysis, convergence diagnostics, or ablation on the effect of the noise parameterization choice, making it impossible to verify whether the reported recoveries are robust or sensitive to post-hoc modeling decisions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'leverages specific structure in the noise model' is too vague; a brief indication of what structure (e.g., convexity in φ or separability) is exploited would improve clarity.
  2. [Active learning] The active-learning description would benefit from an explicit statement of how the adaptive empirical measures are updated and how they differ from standard discrepancy-based sampling.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point-by-point below, agreeing that additional justification and quantitative support will strengthen the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method] Method description (around the coupled loss minimization): The claim that the modified gradient descent stably solves the joint minimization over physics parameters θ and noise parameters φ rests on the unstated assumptions that the chosen parametric noise family is rich enough to avoid misspecification bias and that the resulting non-convex objective has no spurious local minima that would prevent recovery of the correct (θ, φ) pair. No identifiability analysis, regularization argument, or landscape characterization is supplied to support these conditions for the three physical examples; if either assumption fails, the simultaneous deconvolution and parameter-distribution recovery cannot be guaranteed.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important aspect. The current manuscript emphasizes a practical algorithmic framework and its empirical performance on specific physical models rather than providing general theoretical guarantees. We will revise the paper to explicitly articulate the assumptions on the parametric noise family and to include additional numerical experiments (e.g., optimization runs from varied initializations) that probe sensitivity to local minima. A comprehensive identifiability or landscape analysis is model-specific and lies beyond the scope of this work focused on methodology and demonstration. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical examples] Demonstration sections: The abstract and method outline provide no quantitative error analysis, convergence diagnostics, or ablation on the effect of the noise parameterization choice, making it impossible to verify whether the reported recoveries are robust or sensitive to post-hoc modeling decisions.

    Authors: We agree that the demonstration sections would benefit from more quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit error metrics for recovered distributions, convergence diagnostics for the joint optimization, and an ablation study on noise parameterization choices in at least one example. These additions will improve verifiability of robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines a joint loss over physics parameters and a parameterized noise model, then minimizes it via a modified gradient descent that exploits noise-model structure, together with an active-learning surrogate based on adaptive empirical measures. None of these steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs renamed as predictions, nor rely on self-citations whose content is itself unverified or load-bearing for the central claim. The methodology is grounded in external observational data from physical processes and standard optimization techniques, with no self-definitional loops or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work. The derivation therefore remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of a suitable parameterized noise model and the assumption that population data from identical physical processes allows stable joint recovery; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Data originates from collections of physical systems instantiating the same underlying processes.
    Invoked in the abstract to justify leveraging population information for deconvolution.
  • domain assumption A parameter-dependent mathematical model of the physical process exists and can be evaluated.
    Stated as the basis for defining the loss function.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5796 in / 1339 out tokens · 47313 ms · 2026-05-19T14:16:46.735173+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Distributional Inverse Homogenization

    physics.comp-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Distributional inverse homogenization recovers microstructural statistics from macroscopic mechanical measurements by leveraging collections of bulk data in periodic and stochastic settings.

  2. Distributional Inverse Homogenization

    physics.comp-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Distributional inverse homogenization learns microstructural statistics from bulk mechanical measurements by inverting the homogenization process statistically.

  3. Consistency Regularised Gradient Flows for Inverse Problems

    stat.ML 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A consistency-regularized Euclidean-Wasserstein-2 gradient flow performs joint posterior sampling and prompt optimization in latent space for efficient low-NFE inverse problem solving with diffusion models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H. W. Engl, M. Hanke, A. Neubauer, Regularization of inverse problems, Vol. 375, Springer Science & Business Media, 1996

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Kaipio, E

    J. Kaipio, E. Somersalo, Statistical and computational inverse problems, Vol. 160, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    A. M. Stuart, Inverse problems: a Bayesian perspective, Acta numerica 19 (2010) 451– 559

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    R. C. Aster, B. Borchers, C. H. Thurber, Parameter estimation and inverse problems, Elsevier, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    C. W. Groetsch, C. Groetsch, Inverse problems in the mathematical sciences, Vol. 52, Springer, 1993

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Rubin, Bayesian data analysis, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    A. H. Kroese, E. Van der Meulen, K. Poortema, W. Schaafsma, Distributional inference, Statistica Neerlandica 49 (1) (1995) 63–82

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    D. C. Montgomery, Introduction to statistical quality control, John wiley & sons, 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    L. A. Bull, P. A. Gardner, J. Gosliga, T. J. Rogers, N. Dervilis, E. J. Cross, E. Pa- patheou, A. Maguire, C. Campos, K. Worden, Foundations of population-based shm, part i: Homogeneous populations and forms, Mechanical systems and signal processing 148 (2021) 107141

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Schneider, S

    T. Schneider, S. Lan, A. Stuart, J. Teixeira, Earth system modeling 2.0: A blueprint for models that learn from observations and targeted high-resolution simulations, Geo- physical Research Letters 44 (24) (2017) 12–396

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    O. D. Akyildiz, M. Girolami, A. M. Stuart, A. Vadeboncoeur, Efficient prior calibration from indirect data, SIAM SISC, to appear; arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17955 (2024). 36

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Darcy, Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon: exposition et application des principes à suivre et des formules à employer dans les questions de distribution d’eau, Vol

    H. Darcy, Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon: exposition et application des principes à suivre et des formules à employer dans les questions de distribution d’eau, Vol. 1, Victor dalmont, 1856

    work page

  13. [13]

    Cleary, A

    E. Cleary, A. Garbuno-Inigo, S. Lan, T. Schneider, A. M. Stuart, Calibrate, emulate, sample, Journal of Computational Physics 424 (2021) 109716

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Alexander, Deconvolution problems in nonparametric statistics, Lecture Notes in Statistics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009) 5–138

    M. Alexander, Deconvolution problems in nonparametric statistics, Lecture Notes in Statistics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009) 5–138

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    Meister, Deconvolving compactly supported densities, Mathematical Methods of Statistics 16 (2007) 63–76

    A. Meister, Deconvolving compactly supported densities, Mathematical Methods of Statistics 16 (2007) 63–76

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Moulines, J.-F

    E. Moulines, J.-F. Cardoso, E. Gassiat, Maximum likelihood for blind separation and deconvolution of noisy signals using mixture models, in: 1997 ieee international confer- ence on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, Vol. 5, IEEE, 1997, pp. 3617–3620

    work page 1997

  17. [17]

    Attias, C

    H. Attias, C. E. Schreiner, Blind source separation and deconvolution: the dynamic component analysis algorithm, Neural computation 10 (6) (1998) 1373–1424

    work page 1998

  18. [18]

    E. Oja, A. Hyvarinen, Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications, Neural networks 13 (4-5) (2000) 411–430

    work page 2000

  19. [19]

    Hyvärinen, E

    A. Hyvärinen, E. Oja, A fast fixed-point algorithm for independent component analysis, Neural computation 9 (7) (1997) 1483–1492

    work page 1997

  20. [20]

    Hyvarinen, J

    A. Hyvarinen, J. Karhunen, E. Oja, Independent component analysis, Studies in infor- matics and control 11 (2) (2002) 205–207

    work page 2002

  21. [21]

    T.-W. Lee, M. Girolami, T. J. Sejnowski, Independent component analysis using an extended infomax algorithm for mixed subgaussian and supergaussian sources, Neural computation 11 (2) (1999) 417–441

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    Gassiat, S

    E. Gassiat, S. Le Corff, L. Lehéricy, Deconvolution with unknown noise distribution is possible for multivariate signals, The Annals of Statistics 50 (1) (2022) 303–323

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Rousseau, C

    J. Rousseau, C. Scricciolo, Wasserstein convergence in Bayesian and frequentist decon- volution models, The Annals of Statistics 52 (4) (2024) 1691–1715

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Hälvä, S

    H. Hälvä, S. Le Corff, L. Lehéricy, J. So, Y. Zhu, E. Gassiat, A. Hyvarinen, Disentan- gling identifiable features from noisy data with structured nonlinear ica, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021) 1624–1633

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Capitao-Miniconi, É

    J. Capitao-Miniconi, É. Gassiat, Deconvolution of spherical data corrupted with un- known noise, Electronic Journal of Statistics 17 (1) (2023) 607–649

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Capitao-Miniconi, É

    J. Capitao-Miniconi, É. Gassiat, L. Lehéricy, Deconvolution of repeated measurements corrupted by unknown noise, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02014 (2024). 37

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Johannes, Deconvolution with unknown error distribution, The Annals of Statistics 37 (5A) (2009) 2301 – 2323

    J. Johannes, Deconvolution with unknown error distribution, The Annals of Statistics 37 (5A) (2009) 2301 – 2323

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    Comte, C

    F. Comte, C. Lacour, Pointwise deconvolution with unknown error distribution, Comptes Rendus. Mathématique 348 (5-6) (2010) 323–326

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Q. Li, M. Oprea, L. Wang, Y. Yang, Stochastic inverse problem: stability, regularization and Wasserstein gradient flow, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00229 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Q. Li, L. Wang, Y. Yang, Differential equation–constrained optimization with stochas- ticity, SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 12 (2) (2024) 549–578

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Q. Li, M. Oprea, L. Wang, Y. Yang, Inverse problems over probability measure space, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18999 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    J. M. Bernardo, A. F. Smith, Bayesian theory, Vol. 405, John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Robbins, The empirical bayes approach to statistical decision problems, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35 (1) (1964) 1–20

    H. Robbins, The empirical bayes approach to statistical decision problems, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35 (1) (1964) 1–20

    work page 1964

  34. [34]

    H. E. Robbins, An empirical bayes approach to statistics, in: Breakthroughs in Statis- tics: Foundations and basic theory, Springer, 1992, pp. 388–394

    work page 1992

  35. [35]

    Bernton, P

    E. Bernton, P. E. Jacob, M. Gerber, C. P. Robert, On parameter estimation with the wasserstein distance, Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA 8 (4) (2019) 657–676

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Bassetti, A

    F. Bassetti, A. Bodini, E. Regazzini, On minimum kantorovich distance estimators, Statistics & probability letters 76 (12) (2006) 1298–1302

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    Belili, A

    N. Belili, A. Bensaï, H. Heinich, Estimation basée sur la fonctionnelle de kantorovich et la distance de lévy, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences-Series I-Mathematics 328 (5) (1999) 423–426

    work page 1999

  38. [38]

    Butler, J

    T. Butler, J. Jakeman, T. Wildey, Combining push-forward measures and bayes’ rule to constructconsistentsolutionstostochasticinverseproblems, SIAMJournalonScientific Computing 40 (2) (2018) A984–A1011

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Butler, J

    T. Butler, J. D. Jakeman, T. Wildey, Optimal experimental design for prediction based on push-forward probability measures, Journal of Computational Physics 416 (2020) 109518

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Bingham, T

    D. Bingham, T. Butler, D. Estep, Inverse problems for physics-based process models, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 11 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Bui-Thanh, K

    T. Bui-Thanh, K. Willcox, O. Ghattas, Model reduction for large-scale systems with high-dimensional parametric input space, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30 (6) (2008) 3270–3288. 38

    work page 2008

  42. [42]

    Y. Choi, P. Brown, W. Arrighi, R. Anderson, K. Huynh, Space–time reduced order model for large-scale linear dynamical systems with application to boltzmann transport problems, Journal of Computational Physics 424 (2021) 109845

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Bai, Krylov subspace techniques for reduced-order modeling of large-scale dynamical systems, Applied numerical mathematics 43 (1-2) (2002) 9–44

    Z. Bai, Krylov subspace techniques for reduced-order modeling of large-scale dynamical systems, Applied numerical mathematics 43 (1-2) (2002) 9–44

    work page 2002

  44. [44]

    R. W. Freund, Krylov-subspace methods for reduced-order modeling in circuit simula- tion, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 123 (1-2) (2000) 395–421

    work page 2000

  45. [45]

    Sampaio, C

    R. Sampaio, C. Soize, Remarks on the efficiency of pod for model reduction in non-linear dynamics of continuous elastic systems, International Journal for numerical methods in Engineering 72 (1) (2007) 22–45

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Fresca, A

    S. Fresca, A. Manzoni, Pod-dl-rom: Enhancing deep learning-based reduced order mod- els for nonlinear parametrized pdes by proper orthogonal decomposition, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 388 (2022) 114181

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Chaturantabut, D

    S. Chaturantabut, D. C. Sorensen, Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 32 (5) (2010) 2737–2764

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    B. O. Almroth, P. Stern, F. A. Brogan, Automatic choice of global shape functions in structural analysis, Aiaa Journal 16 (5) (1978) 525–528

    work page 1978

  49. [49]

    A. K. Noor, J. M. Peters, Reduced basis technique for nonlinear analysis of structures, Aiaa journal 18 (4) (1980) 455–462

    work page 1980

  50. [50]

    D. G. Krige, A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the witwatersrand, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 52 (6) (1951) 119–139

    work page 1951

  51. [51]

    Sacks, W

    J. Sacks, W. Welch, T. Mitchell, H. Wynn, Statistical science, Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments 4 (4) (1989) 409–423

    work page 1989

  52. [52]

    M. C. Kennedy, A. O’Hagan, Bayesian calibration of computer models, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 63 (3) (2001) 425–464

    work page 2001

  53. [53]

    M. C. Kennedy, A. O’Hagan, Predicting the output from a complex computer code when fast approximations are available, Biometrika 87 (1) (2000) 1–13

    work page 2000

  54. [54]

    Bhattacharya, B

    K. Bhattacharya, B. Hosseini, N. B. Kovachki, A. M. Stuart, Model reduction and neural networks for parametric pdes, The SMAI journal of computational mathematics 7 (2021) 121–157

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    L. Lu, P. Jin, G. Pang, Z. Zhang, G. E. Karniadakis, Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators, Nature machine intelligence 3 (3) (2021) 218–229. 39

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Kovachki, Z

    N. Kovachki, Z. Li, B. Liu, K. Azizzadenesheli, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, A. Anand- kumar, Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes, Journal of Machine Learning Research 24 (89) (2023) 1–97

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, A. Anand- kumar, Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  58. [58]

    Haasdonk, M

    B. Haasdonk, M. Ohlberger, Reduced basis method for finite volume approximationsof parametrizedlinear evolution equations, ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numer- ical Analysis 42 (2) (2008) 277–302

    work page 2008

  59. [59]

    Dutta, M

    S. Dutta, M. W. Farthing, E. Perracchione, G. Savant, M. Putti, A greedy non-intrusive reduced order model for shallow water equations, Journal of Computational Physics 439 (2021) 110378

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    L. Yan, T. Zhou, Stein variational gradient descent with local approximations, Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 386 (2021) 114087

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    R. Z. Zhang, X. Xie, J. S. Lowengrub, Bilo: Bilevel local operator learning for pde inverse problems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17789 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Vadeboncoeur, Ö

    A. Vadeboncoeur, Ö. D. Akyildiz, I. Kazlauskaite, M. Girolami, F. Cirak, Fully prob- abilistic deep models for forward and inverse problems in parametric pdes, Journal of Computational Physics 491 (2023) 112369

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Y. Li, Y. Wang, L. Yan, Surrogate modeling for Bayesian inverse problems based on physics-informedneuralnetworks, JournalofComputationalPhysics475(2023)111841

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Villani, et al., Optimal transport: old and new, Vol

    C. Villani, et al., Optimal transport: old and new, Vol. 338, Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  65. [65]

    Santambrogio, Optimal transport for applied mathematicians, Vol

    F. Santambrogio, Optimal transport for applied mathematicians, Vol. 87, Springer, 2015

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Bonneel, J

    N. Bonneel, J. Rabin, G. Peyré, H. Pfister, Sliced and radon wasserstein barycenters of measures, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision 51 (2015) 22–45

    work page 2015

  67. [67]

    A.Gretton, K.M.Borgwardt, M.J.Rasch, B.Schölkopf, A.Smola, Akerneltwo-sample test, The Journal of Machine Learning Research 13 (1) (2012) 723–773

    work page 2012

  68. [68]

    G. J. Székely, M. L. Rizzo, Energy statistics: A class of statistics based on distances, Journal of statistical planning and inference 143 (8) (2013) 1249–1272

    work page 2013

  69. [69]

    G. J. Székely, E-statistics: The energy of statistical samples, Bowling Green State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics Technical Report 3 (05) (2003) 1–18. 40

    work page 2003

  70. [70]

    Rixner, P.-S

    M. Rixner, P.-S. Koutsourelakis, A probabilistic generative model for semi-supervised training of coarse-grained surrogates and enforcing physical constraints through virtual observables, Journal of Computational Physics 434 (2021) 110218

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Y. Zhu, N. Zabaras, P.-S. Koutsourelakis, P. Perdikaris, Physics-constrained deep learn- ing for high-dimensional surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification without labeled data, Journal of Computational Physics 394 (2019) 56–81

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    D. P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [73]

    Roininen, J

    L. Roininen, J. M. J. Huttunen, S. Lasanen, Whittle-matérn priors for Bayesian statis- tical inversion with applications in electrical impedance tomography, Inverse Problems and Imaging 8 (2) (2014) 561–586

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    M. M. Dunlop, M. A. Iglesias, A. M. Stuart, Hierarchical Bayesian level set inversion, Statistics and Computing 27 (2017) 1555–1584

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    Abramowitz, I

    M. Abramowitz, I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions: with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, Vol. 55, Courier Corporation, 1965

    work page 1965

  76. [76]

    Gottlieb, Eigenvalues of the laplacian with neumann boundary conditions, The ANZIAM Journal 26 (3) (1985) 293–309

    H. Gottlieb, Eigenvalues of the laplacian with neumann boundary conditions, The ANZIAM Journal 26 (3) (1985) 293–309

    work page 1985

  77. [77]

    Solin, S

    A. Solin, S. Särkkä, Hilbert space methods for reduced-rank gaussian process regression, Statistics and Computing 30 (2) (2020) 419–446

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Zhang, E

    W. Zhang, E. Taciroglu, A novel rayleigh-type viscoelastic perfectly-matched-layer for wave propagation analysis: formulation, implementation and application, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 383 (2021) 113913

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Bleyer, Numerical tours of Computational Mechanics with FEniCSx (Jan

    J. Bleyer, Numerical tours of Computational Mechanics with FEniCSx (Jan. 2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Salençon, Handbook of continuum mechanics: General concepts thermoelasticity, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    J. Salençon, Handbook of continuum mechanics: General concepts thermoelasticity, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

Showing first 80 references.