REVIEW 1 cited by
Harnessing the Power of Neural Operators with Automatically Encoded Conservation Laws
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Neural operators (NOs) have emerged as effective tools for modeling complex physical systems in scientific machine learning. In NOs, a central characteristic is to learn the governing physical laws directly from data. In contrast to other machine learning applications, partial knowledge is often known a priori about the physical system at hand whereby quantities such as mass, energy and momentum are exactly conserved. Currently, NOs have to learn these conservation laws from data and can only approximately satisfy them due to finite training data and random noise. In this work, we introduce conservation law-encoded neural operators (clawNOs), a suite of NOs that endow inference with automatic satisfaction of such conservation laws. ClawNOs are built with a divergence-free prediction of the solution field, with which the continuity equation is automatically guaranteed. As a consequence, clawNOs are compliant with the most fundamental and ubiquitous conservation laws essential for correct physical consistency. As demonstrations, we consider a wide variety of scientific applications ranging from constitutive modeling of material deformation, incompressible fluid dynamics, to atmospheric simulation. ClawNOs significantly outperform the state-of-the-art NOs in learning efficacy, especially in small-data regimes.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Guaranteeing Conservation of Integrals with Projection in Physics-Informed Neural Networks
A projection layer can enforce linear and quadratic integral conservation in PINNs, but the quadratic projection formula as printed omits the discretization factor and therefore does not satisfy its own constraint.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.