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

Andrew M. Stuart

dblp:09/6444 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
14ranked-venue papers
0as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-9091-7266ORCID · verified

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 6 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 5

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.

Artificial intelligence
9 papers
Deep learning architectures and training · 36% Learning paradigms · 14% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 12%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
4 papers
Computational science and engineering · 100%

Topics — the 18 heaviest of 22, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
neural operator
1.832025
Continuum Attention for Neural Operators · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025
Neural Operator: Learning Maps Between Function Spaces With Applications to PDEs · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023
Autoencoders in Function Space · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
attention mechanism
0.912025
Continuum Attention for Neural Operators · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
operator learning
0.722022
Learning Chaotic Dynamics in Dissipative Systems · NeurIPS 2022
Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations · ICLR 2021
Computational science and engineering
partial differential equations
0.622023
Multipole Graph Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations · NeurIPS 2020
Neural Operator: Learning Maps Between Function Spaces With Applications to PDEs · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › gradient-based optimization
gradient descent
0.512021
Continuous Time Analysis of Momentum Methods · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2021
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › gradient-based optimization
momentum methods
0.512021
Continuous Time Analysis of Momentum Methods · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2021
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning
neural operator
0.512021
Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations · ICLR 2021
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning › physics-informed machine learning › physics-informed neural networks
partial differential equation solving
0.512021
Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations · ICLR 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation
consistency analysis
0.412020
Consistency of Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms on Graphs: Probit and One-Hot Methods · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2020
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › semi-supervised learning
graph-based semi-supervised learning
0.412020
Consistency of Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms on Graphs: Probit and One-Hot Methods · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2020
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network
0.412020
Multipole Graph Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › semi-supervised learning › graph-based semi-supervised learning
label propagation
0.412020
Consistency of Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms on Graphs: Probit and One-Hot Methods · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2020
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
semi-supervised learning
0.412020
Consistency of Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms on Graphs: Probit and One-Hot Methods · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2020
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process › hierarchical gaussian process
deep gaussian process
0.312018
How Deep Are Deep Gaussian Processes? · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process
0.312018
How Deep Are Deep Gaussian Processes? · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
markov chain monte carlo
0.312018
How Deep Are Deep Gaussian Processes? · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning
surrogate modeling
0.212023
Neural Operator: Learning Maps Between Function Spaces With Applications to PDEs · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference
0.112018
How Deep Are Deep Gaussian Processes? · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018

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

graph neural operator · 1.3fourier neural operator · 1.3invariant measure estimation · 1.1variational inference · 0.9universal approximation · 0.9stochastic differential equation · 0.9neural operator · 0.9monte carlo approximation · 0.9finite difference approximation · 0.9integral operators · 0.7integral operator · 0.7solution operator learning · 0.6fourier transform · 0.5multipole method · 0.4multi-level graph neural network · 0.4kernel matrix factorization · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Autoencoders in Function Space
abstract
Autoencoders have found widespread application in both their original deterministic form and in their variational formulation (VAEs). In scientific applications and in image processing it is often of interest to consider data that are viewed as functions; while discretisation (of differential equations arising in the sciences) or pixellation (of images) renders problems finite dimensional in practice, conceiving first of algorithms that operate on functions, and only then discretising or pixellating, leads to better algorithms that smoothly operate between resolutions. In this paper function-space versions of the autoencoder (FAE) and variational autoencoder (FVAE) are introduced, analysed, and deployed. Well-definedness of the objective governing VAEs is a subtle issue, particularly in function space, limiting applicability. For the FVAE objective to be well defined requires compatibility of the data distribution with the chosen generative model; this can be achieved, for example, when the data arise from a stochastic differential equation, but is generally restrictive. The FAE objective, on the other hand, is well defined in many situations where FVAE fails to be. Pairing the FVAE and FAE objectives with neural operator architectures that can be evaluated on any mesh enables new applications of autoencoders to inpainting, superresolution, and generative modelling of scientific data.
Justin Bunker, Mark A. Girolami, Hefin Lambley, Andrew M. Stuart, Timothy John Sullivan
J. Mach. Learn. Res.4
2025 Continuum Attention for Neural Operators
abstract
Transformers, and the attention mechanism in particular, have become ubiquitous in machine learning. Their success in modeling nonlocal, long-range correlations has led to their widespread adoption in natural language processing, computer vision, and time series problems. Neural operators, which map spaces of functions into spaces of functions, are necessarily both nonlinear and nonlocal if they are universal; it is thus natural to ask whether the attention mechanism can be used in the design of neural operators. Motivated by this, we study transformers in the function space setting. We formulate attention as a map between infinite dimensional function spaces and prove that the attention mechanism as implemented in practice is a Monte Carlo or finite difference approximation of this operator. The function space formulation allows for the design of transformer neural operators, a class of architectures designed to learn mappings between function spaces. In this paper, we state and prove the first universal approximation result for transformer neural operators, using only a slight modification of the architecture implemented in practice. The prohibitive cost of applying the attention operator to functions defined on multi-dimensional domains leads to the need for more efficient attention-based architectures. For this reason we also introduce a function space generalization of the patching strategy from computer vision, and introduce a class of associated neural operators. Numerical results, on an array of operator learning problems, demonstrate the promise of our approaches to function space formulations of attention and their use in neural operators.
Edoardo Calvello, Nikola B. Kovachki, Matthew E. Levine, Andrew M. Stuart
J. Mach. Learn. Res.4
2023 Neural Operator: Learning Maps Between Function Spaces With Applications to PDEs
abstract
The classical development of neural networks has primarily focused on learning mappings between finite dimensional Euclidean spaces or finite sets. We propose a generalization of neural networks to learn operators, termed neural operators, that map between infinite dimensional function spaces. We formulate the neural operator as a composition of linear integral operators and nonlinear activation functions. We prove a universal approximation theorem for our proposed neural operator, showing that it can approximate any given nonlinear continuous operator. The proposed neural operators are also discretization-invariant, i.e., they share the same model parameters among different discretization of the underlying function spaces. Furthermore, we introduce four classes of efficient parameterization, viz., graph neural operators, multi-pole graph neural operators, low-rank neural operators, and Fourier neural operators. An important application for neural operators is learning surrogate maps for the solution operators of partial differential equations (PDEs). We consider standard PDEs such as the Burgers, Darcy subsurface flow, and the Navier-Stokes equations, and show that the proposed neural operators have superior performance compared to existing machine learning based methodologies, while being several orders of magnitude faster than conventional PDE solvers.
Nikola B. Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew M. Stuart, Anima Anandkumar
J. Mach. Learn. Res.6
2022 Learning Chaotic Dynamics in Dissipative Systems
abstract
Chaotic systems are notoriously challenging to predict because of their sensitivity to perturbations and errors due to time stepping. Despite this unpredictable behavior, for many dissipative systems the statistics of the long term trajectories are governed by an invariant measure supported on a set, known as the global attractor; for many problems this set is finite dimensional, even if the state space is infinite dimensional. For Markovian systems, the statistical properties of long-term trajectories are uniquely determined by the solution operator that maps the evolution of the system over arbitrary positive time increments. In this work, we propose a machine learning framework to learn the underlying solution operator for dissipative chaotic systems, showing that the resulting learned operator accurately captures short-time trajectories and long-time statistical behavior. Using this framework, we are able to predict various statistics of the invariant measure for the turbulent Kolmogorov Flow dynamics with Reynolds numbers up to $5000$.
Zongyi Li, Miguel Liu-Schiaffini, Nikola B. Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew M. Stuart, Anima Anandkumar
NeurIPS7
2021 Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations
Zongyi Li, Nikola B. Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew M. Stuart, Anima Anandkumar
ICLR6
2021 Continuous Time Analysis of Momentum Methods
abstract
Gradient descent-based optimization methods underpin the parameter training of neural networks, and hence comprise a significant component in the impressive test results found in a number of applications. Introducing stochasticity is key to their success in practical problems, and there is some understanding of the role of stochastic gradient descent in this context. Momentum modifications of gradient descent such as Polyak's Heavy Ball method (HB) and Nesterov's method of accelerated gradients (NAG), are also widely adopted. In this work our focus is on understanding the role of momentum in the training of neural networks, concentrating on the common situation in which the momentum contribution is fixed at each step of the algorithm. To expose the ideas simply we work in the deterministic setting. Our approach is to derive continuous time approximations of the discrete algorithms; these continuous time approximations provide insights into the mechanisms at play within the discrete algorithms. We prove three such approximations. Firstly we show that standard implementations of fixed momentum methods approximate a time-rescaled gradient descent flow, asymptotically as the learning rate shrinks to zero; this result does not distinguish momentum methods from pure gradient descent, in the limit of vanishing learning rate. We then proceed to prove two results aimed at understanding the observed practical advantages of fixed momentum methods over gradient descent, when implemented in the non-asymptotic regime with fixed small, but non-zero, learning rate. We achieve this by proving approximations to continuous time limits in which the small but fixed learning rate appears as a parameter; this is known as the method of modified equations in the numerical analysis literature, recently rediscovered as the high resolution ODE approximation in the machine learning context. In our second result we show that the momentum method is approximated by a continuous time gradient flow, with an additional momentum-dependent second order time-derivative correction, proportional to the learning rate; this may be used to explain the stabilizing effect of momentum algorithms in their transient phase. Furthermore in a third result we show that the momentum methods admit an exponentially attractive invariant manifold on which the dynamics reduces, approximately, to a gradient flow with respect to a modified loss function, equal to the original loss function plus a small perturbation proportional to the learning rate; this small correction provides convexification of the loss function and encodes additional robustness present in momentum methods, beyond the transient phase.
Nikola B. Kovachki, Andrew M. Stuart
J. Mach. Learn. Res.2
2020 Lessons learned from assimilating knowledge into machine learning to forecast and control glucose in a critical care setting
David J. Albers, Melike Sirlanci Tuysuzoglu, Matthew E. Levine, Caroline Der Nigoghossian, Andrew M. Stuart, Jan Claassen, Bruce J. Gluckman, George Hripcsak
AMIA5
2020 Multipole Graph Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations
abstract
One of the main challenges in using deep learning-based methods for simulating physical systems and solving partial differential equations (PDEs) is formulating physics-based data in the desired structure for neural networks. Graph neural networks (GNNs) have gained popularity in this area since graphs offer a natural way of modeling particle interactions and provide a clear way of discretizing the continuum models. However, the graphs constructed for approximating such tasks usually ignore long-range interactions due to unfavorable scaling of the computational complexity with respect to the number of nodes. The errors due to these approximations scale with the discretization of the system, thereby not allowing for generalization under mesh-refinement. Inspired by the classical multipole methods, we purpose a novel multi-level graph neural network framework that captures interaction at all ranges with only linear complexity. Our multi-level formulation is equivalent to recursively adding inducing points to the kernel matrix, unifying GNNs with multi-resolution matrix factorization of the kernel. Experiments confirm our multi-graph network learns discretization-invariant solution operators to PDEs and can be evaluated in linear time.
Zongyi Li, Nikola B. Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Andrew M. Stuart, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Anima Anandkumar
NeurIPS5
2020 Consistency of Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms on Graphs: Probit and One-Hot Methods
abstract
Graph-based semi-supervised learning is the problem of propagating labels from a small number of labelled data points to a larger set of unlabelled data. This paper is concerned with the consistency of optimization-based techniques for such problems, in the limit where the labels have small noise and the underlying unlabelled data is well clustered. We study graph-based probit for binary classification, and a natural generalization of this method to multi-class classification using one-hot encoding. The resulting objective function to be optimized comprises the sum of a quadratic form defined through a rational function of the graph Laplacian, involving only the unlabelled data, and a fidelity term involving only the labelled data. The consistency analysis sheds light on the choice of the rational function defining the optimization.
Franca Hoffmann, Bamdad Hosseini, Zhi Ren 0003, Andrew M. Stuart
J. Mach. Learn. Res.4
2018 Using mechanistic machine learning to forecast glucose and infer physiologic phenotypes in the ICU: what is possible and what are the challenges
David J. Albers, Matthew E. Levine, Andrew M. Stuart, Jan Claassen, Bruce J. Gluckman, George Hripcsak
AMIA3
2018 Mechanistic machine learning: how data assimilation leverages physiologic knowledge using Bayesian inference to forecast the future, infer the present, and phenotype
abstract
We introduce data assimilation as a computational method that uses machine learning to combine data with human knowledge in the form of mechanistic models in order to forecast future states, to impute missing data from the past by smoothing, and to infer measurable and unmeasurable quantities that represent clinically and scientifically important phenotypes. We demonstrate the advantages it affords in the context of type 2 diabetes by showing how data assimilation can be used to forecast future glucose values, to impute previously missing glucose values, and to infer type 2 diabetes phenotypes. At the heart of data assimilation is the mechanistic model, here an endocrine model. Such models can vary in complexity, contain testable hypotheses about important mechanics that govern the system (eg, nutrition's effect on glucose), and, as such, constrain the model space, allowing for accurate estimation using very little data.
David J. Albers, Matthew E. Levine, Andrew M. Stuart, Lena Mamykina, Bruce J. Gluckman, George Hripcsak
J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.3
2018 How Deep Are Deep Gaussian Processes?
abstract
Recent research has shown the potential utility of deep Gaussian processes. These deep structures are probability distributions, designed through hierarchical construction, which are conditionally Gaussian. In this paper, the current published body of work is placed in a common framework and, through recursion, several classes of deep Gaussian processes are defined. The resulting samples generated from a deep Gaussian process have a Markovian structure with respect to the depth parameter, and the effective depth of the resulting process is interpreted in terms of the ergodicity, or non-ergodicity, of the resulting Markov chain. For the classes of deep Gaussian processes introduced, we provide results concerning their ergodicity and hence their effective depth. We also demonstrate how these processes may be used for inference; in particular we show how a Metropolis-within-Gibbs construction across the levels of the hierarchy can be used to derive sampling tools which are robust to the level of resolution used to represent the functions on a computer. For illustration, we consider the effect of ergodicity in some simple numerical examples.
Matthew M. Dunlop, Mark A. Girolami, Andrew M. Stuart, Aretha L. Teckentrup
J. Mach. Learn. Res.3
2017 Why predicting postprandial glucose using self-monitoring data is difficult
David J. Albers, Matthew E. Levine, Andrew M. Stuart, Bruce J. Gluckman, George Hripcsak
AMIA3
2016 Using data assimilation to forecast post-meal glucose for patients with type 2 diabetes
David J. Albers, Matthew E. Levine, Andrew M. Stuart, George Hripcsak, Lena Mamykina
AMIA3