mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A shape-similarity latent space for fluid interfaces: invertible reduced-order modelling of droplet morphology

arXiv 2609.37947 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2026physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-ph physics.data-ancited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A droplet breaks up in tens of microseconds, and a recording captures perhaps a dozen frames. The states in between cannot be recovered without repeating the experiment, and simulating them is too costly to sweep an operating envelope. Yet they are present in the corpus as a whole: a campaign spanning a device's actuation range produces morphologies resembling those any single recording missed. Exploiting that requires a representation that is low-dimensional, invertible, and faithful to shape rather than to sampling. Proper orthogonal decomposition supplies the first two but measures distance in sampled coordinates; manifold learning supplies the third but no map back to a shape; elastic shape analysis supplies a shape metric but no reduced coordinates. SHROM composes all three. Interfaces are represented by their square-root velocity functions, a neighbour graph is built over that shape space, and an autoencoder is trained to reconstruct while penalising latents in which graph neighbours are not latent neighbours. The demonstration uses 301,539 inkjet droplet contours and four filmed break-up sequences. The graph term does not improve reconstruction. It determines whether position in the latent carries meaning: clustering the latent of an otherwise identical model recovers the shape-space partition at chance level (ARI = 0.063 +/- 0.059), and at 0.781 +/- 0.049 with the term active. Waveform parameters predict the full contour at R^2 = 0.878 +/- 0.026. Negative results are reported in the same terms. The graph metric proved immaterial across five choices, and interpolation error saturates at the reconstruction limit, so a plain autoencoder leads that task. The main limitation is interpolation across a topology change: no component of the regularised latent holds both a single-component and a post-break-up shape, whereas an unregularised autoencoder mixes them freely.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

Builds on

14 of 36 references.

References · 14

  1. 2018Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood informationcited by 250
  2. 2019Topological Autoencoderscited by 127
  3. 2020Parametric UMAP embeddings for representation and semi-supervised learningcited by 104
  4. 2021POD-DL-ROM: enhancing deep learning-based reduced order models for nonlinear parametrized PDEs by proper orthogonal decompositioncited by 79
  5. 2013The varifold representation of non-oriented shapes for diffeomorphic registrationcited by 24
  6. 2020Isometric Autoencoderscited by 18
  7. 2024Decoder ensembling for learned latent geometriescited by 6
  8. 2020Statistical Shape Analysis of Brain Arterial Networks (BAN)cited by 5
  9. 2019Metrics, quantization and registration in varifold spacescited by 4
  10. 2020Representations, Metrics and Statistics For Shape Analysis of Elastic Graphscited by 4
  11. 2021Elastic Shape Analysis of Tree-like 3D Objects using Extended SRVF Representationcited by 4
  12. 2021G-VAE, a Geometric Convolutional VAE for ProteinStructure Generationcited by 2
2 more
  1. 2025Autoencoder-based non-intrusive model order reduction in continuum mechanicscited by 2
  2. 2026On Geometry Regularization in Autoencoder Reduced-Order Models with Latent Neural ODE Dynamicscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.