mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Deep learning for surrogate modelling of 2D mantle convection

arXiv 2108.10105 ↗First posted 23 Aug 2021astro-ph.EP cs.LG physics.flu-dyncited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Traditionally, 1D models based on scaling laws have been used to parameterized convective heat transfer rocks in the interior of terrestrial planets like Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus to tackle the computational bottleneck of high-fidelity forward runs in 2D or 3D. However, these are limited in the amount of physics they can model (e.g. depth dependent material properties) and predict only mean quantities such as the mean mantle temperature. We recently showed that feedforward neural networks (FNN) trained using a large number of 2D simulations can overcome this limitation and reliably predict the evolution of entire 1D laterally-averaged temperature profile in time for complex models. We now extend that approach to predict the full 2D temperature field, which contains more information in the form of convection structures such as hot plumes and cold downwellings. Using a dataset of 10,525 two-dimensional simulations of the thermal evolution of the mantle of a Mars-like planet, we show that deep learning techniques can produce reliable parameterized surrogates (i.e. surrogates that predict state variables such as temperature based only on parameters) of the underlying partial differential equations. We first use convolutional autoencoders to compress the temperature fields by a factor of 142 and then use FNN and long-short term memory networks (LSTM) to predict the compressed fields. On average, the FNN predictions are 99.30% and the LSTM predictions are 99.22% accurate with respect to unseen simulations. Proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) of the LSTM and FNN predictions shows that despite a lower mean absolute relative accuracy, LSTMs capture the flow dynamics better than FNNs. When summed, the POD coefficients from FNN predictions and from LSTM predictions amount to 96.51% and 97.66% relative to the coefficients of the original simulations, respectively.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 92 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2021.

Builds on

12 of 92 references.

References · 12

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  2. 2015Convolutional LSTM Network: A Machine Learning Approach for Precipitation Nowcastingcited by 1,428
  3. 2017Self-Normalizing Neural Networkscited by 591
  4. 2016Recurrent Neural Networks for Multivariate Time Series with Missing Valuescited by 548
  5. 2019Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanicscited by 380
  6. 2021Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse designcited by 277
  7. 2020PhyGeoNet: Physics-Informed Geometry-Adaptive Convolutional Neural Networks for Solving Parameterized Steady-State PDEs on Irregular Domaincited by 173
  8. 2019Prediction of Aerodynamic Flow Fields Using Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 144
  9. 2016By-passing the Kohn-Sham equations with machine learningcited by 65
  10. 2020Deep Neural Networks for Nonlinear Model Order Reduction of Unsteady Flowscited by 36
  11. 2020Reservoir computing model of two-dimensional turbulent convectioncited by 15
  12. 2021Data-driven geophysical forecasting: Simple, low-cost, and accurate baselines with kernel methodscited by 15

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

3 papers.