arXiv:2609.25430v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Neural surrogates can substantially accelerate computer-aided engineering (CAE) workflows, but their use in design requires uncertainty estimates that...
By Kaustubh Tangsali, Mohammad Amin Nabian, Kelvin Lee, Carmelo Gonzales, Sanjay Choudhry
arXiv:2608.29349v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Gaussian process (GP) regression with a single global GP (GP-glo) incurs cubic computational cost, limiting scalability to large datasets. Product-of-e...
By Yean Hoon Ong, Paolo Barucca, Wei Pan, Jun Wang
arXiv:2603. 17057v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Active multi-fidelity surrogate modeling is developed for multi-condition airfoil shape optimization to reduce high-fidelity CFD cost while retaining RANS-consistent aerodynamic metrics.
By Isaac Robledo, Alberto Vilari\~no, Arnau Mir\'o, Oriol Lehmkuhl, Carlos Sanmiguel Vila, Rodrigo Castellanos
The paper introduces a correction framework that grounds a CFD-trained deep learning surrogate model for aerospace aerodynamics using wind‑tunnel pressure‑sensor (PSP) data. By training a correction network on spatially registered PSP measurements at two Mach numbers, the authors adjust the surrogate’s predictions without retraining its core parameters, achieving improved agreement with experimental pressure distributions—especially at the wing suction peak and shock location. The grounded surrogate matches measurements within 2.3–2.7% of the Cp range on unseen angles of attack and outperforms simple interpolation between measured states.
By Nitin Nagesh Kulkarni, Dheeraj Vemula, Yin Yu, Peter Lyu, Juan J. Alonso
arXiv:2512. 13069v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Accurate aerodynamic prediction often relies on high-fidelity simulations; however, their prohibitive computational costs severely limit their applicability in data-driven modeling.
By Javier Nieto-Centenero, Esther Andr\'es, Rodrigo Castellanos
The paper introduces a ground‑truth framework for disentangling uncertainty into epistemic and aleatoric components using sample‑conditional pointwise posterior risk. It evaluates current methods, finding that Spectral‑normalized Neural Gaussian Processes and Variational Latent Gaussian Processes best recover the ground‑truth uncertainty, while most methods align more closely with posterior variance and miss predictor bias. The study also explores the entanglement of estimated uncertainties and the impact of modeling choices, providing practical guidance and releasing 13 semi‑synthetic datasets for further validation.
By Frieder Wizgall, Georg Tirpitz, Moritz Seiler, Kerstin Ritter, B\'alint Mucs\'anyi
arXiv:2603. 22050v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Supervised machine learning describes the practice of fitting a parameterized model to labeled input-output data.
By Atticus Rex, Elizabeth Qian, David Peterson
arXiv:2605. 20145v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Gaussian process (GP) predictive distributions are commonly used in Bayesian optimization (BO) to guide the selection of evaluation points for expensive objective functions.
By Aur\'elien Pion, Emmanuel Vazquez
arXiv:2607. 18294v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine learning surrogate models are increasingly being explored in engineering product development to augment simulation-driven design, offering near-instantaneous predictions that complement computationally expensive high-fidelity analyses.
By Sudeep Chavare
arXiv:2608. 05995v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reliable uncertainty estimates are critical in safety-sensitive applications, where understanding the sources of predictive uncertainty is essential.
By Frieder Wizgall, Georg Tirpitz, Moritz Seiler, Kerstin Ritter, B\'alint Mucs\'anyi
arXiv:2606. 27269v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reliably quantifying predictive uncertainty is difficult for complex, high-dimensional, or misspecified models.
By Graham Gibson, John Tipton, Kellin Rumsey, Natalie Klein
arXiv:2607. 09763v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Engineering shape optimization faces challenges in both expert-dependent problem setup and surrogate-model reliability.
By Wenhao Fan, Yuanwei Bin, Jianghan Gu, Wenfa Luo, Jiao Xiang, Yuntian Chen, Shiyi Chen