Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Timothy Nunn
dblp:359/2461
· DBLP profile ↗
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% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
conformal prediction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Calibrated Physics-Informed Uncertainty Quantification · ICML 2025 |
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning › physics-informed machine learning
physics-informed neural networks |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Calibrated Physics-Informed Uncertainty Quantification · ICML 2025 |
Computational science and engineering
uncertainty quantification |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Calibrated Physics-Informed Uncertainty Quantification · ICML 2025 |
Computational science and engineering
partial differential equation solver |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Calibrated Physics-Informed Uncertainty Quantification · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
finite-difference stencil · 1.7conformal prediction · 1.7convolutional layers · 0.9convolutional layer · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Calibrated Physics-Informed Uncertainty QuantificationabstractSimulating complex physical systems is crucial for understanding and predicting phenomena across diverse fields, such as fluid dynamics and heat transfer, as well as plasma physics and structural mechanics. Traditional approaches rely on solving partial differential equations (PDEs) using numerical methods, which are computationally expensive and often prohibitively slow for real-time applications or large-scale simulations. Neural PDEs have emerged as efficient alternatives to these costly numerical solvers, offering significant computational speed-ups. However, their lack of robust uncertainty quantification (UQ) limits deployment in critical applications. We introduce a model-agnostic, physics-informed conformal prediction (CP) framework that provides guaranteed uncertainty estimates without requiring labelled data. By utilising a physics-based approach, we can quantify and calibrate the model’s inconsistencies with the physics rather than the uncertainty arising from the data. Our approach utilises convolutional layers as finite-difference stencils and leverages physics residual errors as nonconformity scores, enabling data-free UQ with marginal and joint coverage guarantees across prediction domains for a range of complex PDEs. We further validate the efficacy of our method on neural PDE models for plasma modelling and shot design in fusion reactors. Vignesh Gopakumar, Ander Gray, Lorenzo Zanisi, Timothy Nunn, Daniel Giles, Matt J. Kusner, Stanislas Pamela, Marc Peter Deisenroth |
ICML | 4 |