Generalization capabilities and robustness of hybrid models grounded in physics compared to purely deep learning models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This study investigates the generalization capabilities and robustness of purely deep learning (DL) models and hybrid models based on physical principles in fluid dynamics applications, specifically focusing on iteratively forecasting the temporal evolution of flow dynamics. Three autoregressive models were compared: a hybrid model (POD-DL) that combines proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) with a long-short term memory (LSTM) layer, a convolutional autoencoder combined with a convolutional LSTM (ConvLSTM) layer and a variational autoencoder (VAE) combined with a ConvLSTM layer. These models were tested on two high-dimensional, nonlinear datasets representing the velocity field of flow past a circular cylinder in both laminar and turbulent regimes. The study used latent dimension methods, enabling a bijective reduction of high-dimensional dynamics into a lower-order space to facilitate future predictions. While the VAE and ConvLSTM models accurately predicted laminar flow, the hybrid POD-DL model outperformed the others across both laminar and turbulent flow regimes. This success is attributed to the model's ability to incorporate modal decomposition, reducing the dimensionality of the data, by a non-parametric method, and simplifying the forecasting component. By leveraging POD, the model not only gained insight into the underlying physics, improving prediction accuracy with less training data, but also reduce the number of trainable parameters as POD is non-parametric. The findings emphasize the potential of hybrid models, particularly those integrating modal decomposition and deep learning, in predicting complex flow dynamics.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 78 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Apr 2024.
Builds on
18 of 78 references.
References · 18
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2016Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticianscited by 1,472
- 2014Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognitioncited by 720
- 2022Scientific Machine Learning through Physics-Informed Neural Networks: Where we are and What's nextcited by 608
- 2019Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanicscited by 385
- 2023Neural General Circulation Models for Weather and Climatecited by 239
- 2018Data-Driven Forecasting of High-Dimensional Chaotic Systems with Long Short-Term Memory Networkscited by 155
- 2023Diffusion Models for Time Series Applications: A Surveycited by 72
- 2022Criteria for Classifying Forecasting Methodscited by 48
- 2021Towards extraction of orthogonal and parsimonious non-linear modes from turbulent flowscited by 45
- 2023Super-Resolution Analysis via Machine Learning: A Survey for Fluid Flowscited by 31
6 more
- 2020Data-driven modelling of nonlinear spatio-temporal fluid flows using a deep convolutional generative adversarial networkcited by 16
- 2022Predicting the temporal dynamics of turbulent channels through deep learningcited by 10
- 2019Deep Neural Networks Predicting Oil Movement in a Development Unitcited by 4
- 2021Implicit Copulas: An Overviewcited by 3
- 2022Forecasting through deep learning and modal decomposition in two-phase concentric jetscited by 3
- 2023A predictive physics-aware hybrid reduced order model for reacting flowscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.