Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Uncertainty quantification in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons

Open access
Psaros, Apostolos F., Meng, Xuhui, Zou, Zongren, Guo, Ling, Karniadakis, George Em·2023·Journal of Computational Physics

Abstract

Neural networks (NNs) are currently changing the computational paradigm on how to combine data with mathematical laws in physics and engineering in a profound way, tackling challenging inverse and ill-posed problems not solvable with traditional methods. However, quantifying errors and uncertainties in NN-based inference is more complicated than in traditional methods. This is because in addition to aleatoric uncertainty associated with noisy data, there is also uncertainty due to limited data, but also due to NN hyperparameters, overparametrization, optimization and sampling errors as well as model misspecification. Although there are some recent works on uncertainty quantification (UQ) in NNs, there is no systematic investigation of suitable methods towards quantifying the total uncertainty effectively and efficiently even for function approximation, and there is even less work on solving partial differential equations and learning operator mappings between infinite-dimensional function spaces using NNs. In this work, we present a comprehensive framework that includes uncertainty modeling, new and existing solution methods, as well as evaluation metrics and post-hoc improvement approaches. To demonstrate the applicability and reliability of our framework, we present an extensive comparative study in which various methods are tested on prototype problems, including problems with mixed input-output data, and stochastic problems in high dimensions. In the Appendix, we include a comprehensive description of all the UQ methods employed, which we will make available as open-source library of all codes included in this framework.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111902

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 89 references

Cited by

See all 455

Metadata

Authors
Psaros, A. F., Meng, X., Zou, Z., Guo, L., & Karniadakis, G. E.
Venue
Journal of Computational Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
477
Pages
111902
ISSN
0021-9991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4315628777
Cited by
455
References
89
FWCI
43.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Uncertainty quantification in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111902
The paper
Psaros, A. F., Meng, X., Zou, Z., Guo, L., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2023). Uncertainty quantification in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons. Journal of Computational Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111902

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.