mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Generalized Neural Closure Models with Interpretability

arXiv 2301.06198 ↗First posted 15 Jan 2023cs.LG math.DS physics.flu-dyncited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Improving the predictive capability and computational cost of dynamical models is often at the heart of augmenting computational physics with machine learning (ML). However, most learning results are limited in interpretability and generalization over different computational grid resolutions, initial and boundary conditions, domain geometries, and physical or problem-specific parameters. In the present study, we simultaneously address all these challenges by developing the novel and versatile methodology of unified neural partial delay differential equations. We augment existing/low-fidelity dynamical models directly in their partial differential equation (PDE) forms with both Markovian and non-Markovian neural network (NN) closure parameterizations. The melding of the existing models with NNs in the continuous spatiotemporal space followed by numerical discretization automatically allows for the desired generalizability. The Markovian term is designed to enable extraction of its analytical form and thus provides interpretability. The non-Markovian terms allow accounting for inherently missing time delays needed to represent the real world. We obtain adjoint PDEs in the continuous form, thus enabling direct implementation across differentiable and non-differentiable computational physics codes, different ML frameworks, and treatment of nonuniformly-spaced spatiotemporal training data. We demonstrate the new generalized neural closure models (gnCMs) framework using four sets of experiments based on advecting nonlinear waves, shocks, and ocean acidification models. Our learned gnCMs discover missing physics, find leading numerical error terms, discriminate among candidate functional forms in an interpretable fashion, achieve generalization, and compensate for the lack of complexity in simpler models. Finally, we analyze the computational advantages of our new framework.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 79 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jan 2023.

Builds on

15 of 79 references.

References · 15

  1. 2018Neural Ordinary Differential Equationscited by 3,733
  2. 2020Weak SINDy For Partial Differential Equationscited by 154
  3. 2019ANODE: Unconditionally Accurate Memory-Efficient Gradients for Neural ODEscited by 83
  4. 2020Adaptive Checkpoint Adjoint Method for Gradient Estimation in Neural ODEcited by 76
  5. 2019DeepMoD: Deep learning for Model Discovery in noisy datacited by 70
  6. 2019DPM: A deep learning PDE augmentation method (with application to large-eddy simulation)cited by 40
  7. 2020Neural Closure Models for Dynamical Systemscited by 22
  8. 2018Automatic differentiation in ML: Where we are and where we should be goingcited by 20
  9. 2018Data-driven Discovery of Closure Modelscited by 19
  10. 2017Tangent: Automatic Differentiation Using Source Code Transformation in Pythoncited by 4
  11. 2019Sparse Regression and Adaptive Feature Generation for the Discovery of Dynamical Systemscited by 4
  12. 2018Batch Size Influence on Performance of Graphic and Tensor Processing Units during Training and Inference Phasescited by 3
3 more
  1. 2020A Deep Learning Approach for Predicting Spatiotemporal Dynamics From Sparsely Observed Datacited by 3
  2. 2022A memory-efficient neural ODE framework based on high-level adjoint differentiationcited by 3
  3. 2022Bayesian Learning of Coupled Biogeochemical-Physical Modelscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

8 papers.