arXiv:2606. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predicting the aerodynamic performance (e.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.