Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jean Fesquet

dblp:409/1128 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational science and engineering · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational science and engineering
computational fluid dynamics
0.912025
ML4CFD Competition: Results and Retrospective Analysis · NeurIPS 2025
Computational science and engineering
scientific machine learning
0.912025
ML4CFD Competition: Results and Retrospective Analysis · NeurIPS 2025
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning
surrogate modeling
0.912025
ML4CFD Competition: Results and Retrospective Analysis · NeurIPS 2025
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.312025
ML4CFD Competition: Results and Retrospective Analysis · NeurIPS 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

machine learning surrogate modeling · 1.7OpenFOAM · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 ML4CFD Competition: Results and Retrospective Analysis
abstract
The integration of machine learning (ML) into the physical sciences is reshaping computational paradigms, offering the potential to accelerate demanding simulations such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Yet, persistent challenges in accuracy, generalization, and physical consistency hinder the practical deployment of ML models in scientific domains. To address these limitations and systematically benchmark progress, we organized the ML4CFD competition, centered on surrogate modeling for aerodynamic simulations over two-dimensional airfoils. The competition attracted over 240 teams, who were provided with a curated dataset generated via OpenFOAM and evaluated through a multi-criteria framework encompassing predictive accuracy, physical fidelity, computational efficiency, and out-of-distribution generalization. This retrospective analysis reviews the competition outcomes, highlighting several approaches that outperformed baselines under our global evaluation score. Notably, the top entry exceeded the performance of the original OpenFOAM solver on aggregate metrics, illustrating the promise of ML based surrogates to outperform traditional solvers under tailored criteria. However, this does not imply that the winning solution could replace the OpenFOAM solver or that it was overall superior, even for this specific task. Drawing from these results, we analyze the key design principles of top submissions, assess the robustness of our evaluation framework, and offer guidance for future scientific ML challenges.
Mouadh Yagoubi, David Danan, Milad Leyli-Abadi, Jocelyn Ahmed Mazari, Jean-Patrick Brunet, Abbas Kabalan, Fabien Casenave, Giovanni Catalani, Jean Fesquet, Jacob Helwig, Haiyang Yu 0005, Xavier Bertrand, Frederic Tost, Michael Bauerheim, Joseph Morlier, Shuiwang Ji
NeurIPS10