Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Operator Learning for Reconstructing Flow Fields from Sparse Measurements: an Energy Transformer Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Energy Transformer reconstructs fluid flow fields from 10% of measurements

desk verdict A clean, honest demonstration that an Energy Transformer can fill in 90%-masked flow fields on a few in-distribution cases, but the generalization claims are softer than the abstract implies and the comparisons are qualitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08339 v1 pith:DK3IZJBB submitted 2025-01-02 physics.flu-dyn cs.AIcs.CE

Qian Zhang , Dmitry Krotov , George Em Karniadakis This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyncs.AIcs.CE
keywords operatorlearningEnergyTransformerflowfieldreconstructionsparsemeasurementsHopfieldnetworkmaskedpatchesturbulentjetvortexstreet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that full fluid flow fields can be recovered from very sparse measurements by treating reconstruction as an operator learning problem and using the Energy Transformer, a neural architecture whose forward pass is an energy minimization tied to associative memory. On three test problems — a simulated two-dimensional vortex street, an experimental supersonic jet visualized with Schlieren imaging, and a three-dimensional turbulent jet measured by particle tracking — the model receives 10% of the flow field in masked patches and fills in the remaining 90%. The authors report low relative errors in all three cases, including for noisy experimental data, with training on a single GPU and inference on the order of milliseconds per snapshot for the two-dimensional cases. The central claim is that a memory-based energy function can act as a reconstruction operator that works across different data modalities and masking patterns.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Energy Transformer (ET) block, whose energy $E = E_{\mathrm{ATT}} + E_{\mathrm{HN}}$ is minimized in the forward pass. The multi-head energy attention term is $$E_{\mathrm{ATT}} = -\frac{1}{\$\beta$}\sum_{h=1}^{H}\sum_{C=1}^{N}\log\Big(\sum_{B \neq C} \exp(\$\beta$ A^h_{BC})\Big),$$ with an attention matrix $A^h_{BC}$ built from learned key and query contractions, so that the queries of masked tokens are aligned with the keys of observed tokens. The Hopfield-network term $E_{\mathrm{HN}} = -\sum_{B,\mu} G\big(\sum_j \xi_{\mu j} g_{Bj}\big)$ acts on each token separately and stores local patterns. The forward pass updates tokens as $x^{t+1} = x^t - \alpha \nabla_g E(g(x^t))$ for a fixed number of iterations, so reconstruction is a descent into a learned memory: observed patches seed the tokens, masked patches start from noise, and the converged tokens are detokenized into the full field.

What would settle it

Train the Energy Transformer on a vortex street at one Reynolds number and then evaluate it on a vortex street at a substantially different Reynolds number or with a different obstacle geometry using the same 10% patch sampling; if the relative error rises far above the in-distribution value of 0.0405, the claim of a generalizable reconstruction operator is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Energy Transformer learns a reconstruction operator by storing full flow snapshots as local minima of a learned energy function. At inference, observed patches are tokenized, masked patches are initialized with noise, and the tokens are updated by gradient descent on the energy until convergence; the converged tokens are detokenized into the complete field. Because the learned energy couples every token through multi-head energy attention, information flows from observed to masked patches and the model fills in large-scale coherent structures from roughly 10% of the data. The paper reports relative errors of 0.0405 for the vortex street velocity, 0.1313 for the noisy jet Schlieren field, and 0.2749 for the three-dimensional turbulent jet velocity, and takes these as evidence that the reconstruction operator is learned effectively.

Load-bearing premise

The method treats reconstruction as completing stored patterns, so its accuracy rests on the test data resembling the training data; the paper's own summary notes this, and all three experiments test only temporal continuations of the same flow configurations, leaving different Reynolds numbers, geometries, and noise statistics unverified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sparse sensor arrays, such as small particle image velocimetry windows placed at different parts of a domain, can feed the same trained operator because the energy function can be minimized from any masking pattern.
  • Because inference is a short minimization on a simple energy rather than a full physics-constrained optimization, the method offers a lower-cost alternative to physics-informed neural network reconstruction for repeated or real-time use.
  • Direct numerical simulation can generate the training set, and experimental observations can then be reconstructed with the same operator, suggesting a path to foundation models for flow reconstruction.
  • All three reconstructions use the same hyperparameters and training recipe, indicating that the framework does not need per-problem architectural tuning.
  • When training data is cut to 25% of the vortex street snapshots, the velocity relative error jumps from 0.0405 to 0.1616, showing the operator needs at least roughly one full flow period in the training set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The three test sets are temporal continuations of the training configurations; the energy-memory picture suggests the operator interpolates on the manifold of stored patterns, so a natural next test is out-of-configuration generalization to new Reynolds numbers, geometries, or noise levels.
  • The same patch-mask formulation could be applied to other inverse problems with sparse sensors, such as weather field interpolation or strain field reconstruction from digital image correlation, though the paper does not run those experiments.
  • Because the energy is explicit, a physics constraint such as incompressibility could be added as an extra energy term and minimized with the same dynamics, giving a physics-informed variant; the paper does not explore this.
  • Per-region error maps would be informative: the 3D jet's relative error of 0.2749 may conceal spatially concentrated errors, and the paper itself notes the errors concentrate upstream, which matters when accuracy in specific regions is critical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an operator learning framework for reconstructing full flow fields from sparse patch observations using the Energy Transformer (ET). The method is evaluated on three fluid mechanics datasets: a 2D vortex street simulation, a 2D Schlieren jet experiment, and a 3D turbulent jet PTV dataset, all with approximately 90% of the patches masked. The paper reports relative errors on held-out temporal snapshots (0.0405 for the vortex street velocity, 0.1313 for the jet Schlieren data, and 0.2749 for the 3D jet velocity), together with training and inference times on a single GPU, and concludes that ET can accurately reconstruct complex flow fields from highly incomplete and noisy data.

Significance. If validated, the proposed method could offer a fast, memory-based alternative to per-case reconstruction methods such as PINNs, and the inclusion of diverse data modalities (simulation, Schlieren imaging, and PTV) is a useful feature of the study. The paper is also candid in Section 5 about the method's limitation: it performs well when test data resembles training data and learns snapshot completion rather than evolution rules. However, the evidence as presented supports only in-distribution snapshot completion for the specific flows tested. The absence of baseline comparisons, the temporal-continuation test design, and the lack of out-of-distribution experiments mean that the abstract's general claim of accurate reconstruction from 90% missing data is not yet established. The paper is a reasonable proof-of-concept but requires substantial additional experiments to support the operator learning claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and Section 5] The central generalization claim is not supported by the experimental design. All three test sets are temporal continuations of the training flows: the vortex street uses snapshots 81-100 after training on snapshots 1-80 of a periodic shedding sequence (Figure 3), the jet experiment uses the last 200 of 1000 snapshots, and the 3D jet uses the last 40 of 200. Section 5 explicitly states that "the Energy Transformer performs well when the test data resembles the training data" and that it "learns to complete individual snapshots rather than understand the underlying evolution rules." The reported errors may therefore reflect associative-memory retrieval of stored periodic patterns rather than generalization to unseen flow states, different Reynolds numbers, geometries, noise statistics, or mask patterns. Please add out-of-distribution tests (e.g., different Reynolds numbers, different noise levels, or different mask geometries) or revise the abstract to state that the claim is limited to in-distribution snapshot completion.
  2. [Section 4 and Section 3] No quantitative baselines are provided. Section 4 discusses advantages over PINNs, DeepONet, and FNO in qualitative terms, but no experiment compares ET against any existing reconstruction method, nor against simple baselines such as interpolation, POD/GPR, or a standard transformer-based masked autoencoder. Without such comparisons, the reported errors cannot establish that ET is competitive, and the claim that the method "presents a unique approach" with advantages is not substantiated. A methods paper claiming a "promising new direction" should include at least one quantitative comparison on the same datasets and mask settings.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 14] The 3D turbulent jet experiment uses a single fixed observation mask (the last half of the jet center) rather than the random sparse patch masks used in the 2D examples. This setup does not test the method's claimed flexibility for arbitrary sparse sensor placements, and it may allow the model to exploit a fixed spatial correlation between observed and unobserved regions. The paper should either evaluate this case with multiple random mask patterns or clearly limit the claim for this example to the specific fixed mask configuration.
  4. [Section 2.2, forward pass] The inference procedure is underspecified. The forward pass says tokens are initialized as x0 = x and updated by xt+1 = xt - alpha * grad_g E(g(xt)), but the paper does not state whether the observed tokens are held fixed during the iterations or whether all tokens, including those corresponding to observed patches, are updated. This detail is essential for reproducibility and for understanding how the observed data constrains the reconstruction. Please specify the update rule precisely, including which tokens are updated at inference time and how masked tokens are initialized in the evaluation stage.
  5. [Section 3.3, Table 4] The reported relative error for the 3D velocity field is 0.2749, which is high for a reconstruction method, yet the text calls this "satisfactory" without providing any baseline or noise-floor context. Without comparison to the noise level of the PTV-derived data or to alternative reconstruction errors, this number does not support the abstract's "accurately reconstruct" claim for the 3D case. Please provide the noise level of the data, a comparison baseline, or a discussion of what error level is acceptable for the intended application.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Table 1] Table 1 lists "Patch size 8 × 8" for all examples, but Section 3.3 uses patches of shape [8, 8, 8, 4] for the 3D data. Please correct the table or clarify that the patch size is per spatial dimension and that the channel depth is handled separately.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Table 2] The metric terminology is inconsistent: the text refers to "relative mean squared error (RMSE)" as the training loss, but RMSE conventionally means root mean square error, and the relative error is defined as "the RMSE divided by the l2 norm of the full data," which is not dimensionally consistent if RMSE is a squared error. Please define the exact loss and error metrics used in the tables.
  3. [Section 2.1] The notation Pa = {(xA_a, vA_a)} with subscripts and superscripts is hard to follow because the sample index and the position index are both written in close proximity. A cleaner notation, e.g., using explicit sample superscripts, would improve readability.
  4. [Figures 6, 11, and 16] The error figures do not include color bars or numerical scales, so the reader cannot judge the magnitude of the errors from the plots. Please add color bars and state the normalization used for the error fields.
  5. [Section 5] There is a typo in the last paragraph: "digital impage correlation" should be "digital image correlation." Also, the paper does not include a data and code availability statement; for reproducibility, please add one.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction results are independently evaluated against ground-truth fields, and the self-citations to the Energy Transformer architecture are not load-bearing for the reported errors.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical and self-contained: it trains an Energy Transformer to minimize a relative mean-squared-error loss between reconstructed and ground-truth full fields from randomly masked patches, then reports errors on held-out temporal snapshots (Section 3, Tables 2-4). No predicted quantity is defined in terms of a fitted constant, no equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no physical or statistical parameter is extracted and then renamed as a prediction. The Energy Transformer architecture and Hopfield energy are imported from prior work by Krotov and co-authors (refs. 33-35), but the present reconstruction task, the RMSE loss against ground truth, and the test errors are computed independently, so this self-citation is not load-bearing under the hard rules. Section 5 explicitly concedes that 'the Energy Transformer performs well when the test data resembles the training data' and that it 'learns to complete individual snapshots rather than understand the underlying evolution rules'; this is a generalization limitation, not circular reasoning. The use of temporal continuations of the training flows for testing is a potential overstatement of operator generalization, but that is a correctness or benchmarking concern, not a circularity of derivation. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built entirely from existing components (Energy Transformer, tokenizer, detokenizer, patch operations). There are no invented physical entities, mediators, or conserved quantities. The only invented content is the workflow composition, and the hand-chosen hyperparameters listed above. The axiomatic load is modest: four domain and background assumptions, none of which is a free physical constant.

free parameters (6)
  • patch size = 8x8 (2D), 8x8x8 (3D)
    Hand chosen in Table 1; no sensitivity analysis for patch size is provided.
  • token dimension D = 256
    Hand chosen in Table 1; no ablation shows that this value is optimal.
  • energy attention heads H = 8
    Hand chosen in Table 1; no investigation of head count is reported.
  • Hopfield hidden dim = 2048
    Hand chosen in Table 1; no sensitivity study.
  • update iterations T and step size alpha = T=12, alpha=0.1
    Hand chosen in Table 1; convergence is asserted but not analyzed for these values.
  • mask rate = 90% (examples 1 and 2), ~90% fixed mask (example 3)
    The central claim '90% missing' depends on this chosen rate; no experiments vary the masking ratio.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The full data can be divided into patches of the same size, with observed data consisting of some patches (all other patches masked).
    Section 2.1 states this assumption. It restricts the method to patch-level measurement masks rather than arbitrary point observations, so real sensor configurations must align with patch grids.
  • standard math ET inference converges to a meaningful local minimum such that masked tokens are filled from stored patterns.
    Section 2.2 invokes the Energy Transformer's convergence and memory properties established in Hoover et al. (2024); the present paper does not re-derive or test convergence guarantees.
  • domain assumption Test snapshots are drawn from the same flow configuration and statistics as the training snapshots.
    Section 5 acknowledges the method works best when test data resembles training data; all experiments split a single time series, so this assumption is untested for new flow conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Masked tokens filled with fixed random noise during training provide a valid training signal for denoising reconstruction.
    Section 2.1 and Figure 1 describe filling masked patches with fixed random noise; no justification or ablations for this choice are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Operator Learning for Reconstructing Flow Fields from Sparse Measurements: an Energy Transformer Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DK3IZJBB

@misc{pith2026250108339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Operator Learning for Reconstructing Flow Fields from Sparse Measurements: an Energy Transformer Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DK3IZJBB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08339}
}
read the original abstract

Machine learning methods have shown great success in various scientific areas, including fluid mechanics. However, reconstruction problems, where full velocity fields must be recovered from partial observations, remain challenging. In this paper, we propose a novel operator learning framework for solving reconstruction problems by using the Energy Transformer (ET), an architecture inspired by associative memory models. We formulate reconstruction as a mapping from incomplete observed data to full reconstructed fields. The method is validated on three fluid mechanics examples using diverse types of data: (1) unsteady 2D vortex street in flow past a cylinder using simulation data; (2) high-speed under-expanded impinging supersonic jets impingement using Schlieren imaging; and (3) 3D turbulent jet flow using particle tracking. The results demonstrate the ability of ET to accurately reconstruct complex flow fields from highly incomplete data (90\% missing), even for noisy experimental measurements, with fast training and inference on a single GPU. This work provides a promising new direction for tackling reconstruction problems in fluid mechanics and other areas in mechanics, geophysics, weather prediction, and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08339 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed workflow. The dashed arrows represent the operations that are only used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ET block. (a) The structure of the ET block. (b) The update rule in the forward pass of the ET block. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Signature of the 2D vortex street dataset: values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training loss of the 2D vortex street example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstruction results of a 2D vortex street flow at time step 90. Each row in the figure displays a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Errors of the 2D vortex street example at time step 90 for four physical component. The error is defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of the supersonic jet impinging experiment setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Signature of the 2D jet flow dataset: data values at the center of the domain versus the time. The red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Training loss of the 2D jet flow example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of the jet impinging example at timestep 900. The x and y axis represent the horizontal and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Errors of the jet impinging example at timestep 900. The x and y axis are the same as in Figure 10. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Signature of the 3D jet flow dataset: values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Training loss of the 3D turbulent jet example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Illustration of the masks in the 3D turbulent jet flow example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Reconstruction results of a 3D turbulent jet flow at timestep 180, visualized on the slice at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Errors of the 3D turbulent jet flow example at timestep 180 at the slice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andersson, Andrew El-Kadi, Dominic Masters, Timo Ewalds, Jacklynn Stott, Shakir Mohamed, Peter Battaglia, Remi Lam, and Matthew Willson

    Ilan Price, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Ferran Alet, Tom R. Andersson, Andrew El-Kadi, Dominic Masters, Timo Ewalds, Jacklynn Stott, Shakir Mohamed, Peter Battaglia, Remi Lam, and Matthew Willson. Proba- bilistic weather forecasting with machine learning. Nature, Dec 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Alhussein Fawzi, Matej Balog, Aja Huang, Thomas Hubert, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Julian Schrittwieser, Grzegorz Swirszcz, David Silver, Demis Hassabis, and Pushmeet Kohli. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. Nature, 610(7930):47–53, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model higgs boson with the atlas detector at the lhc

    Georges Aad, Tatevik Abajyan, Brad Abbott, Jalal Abdallah, S Abdel Khalek, Ahmed Ali Abdelalim, R Aben, B Abi, M Abolins, OS AbouZeid, et al. Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model higgs boson with the atlas detector at the lhc. Physics Letters B, 716(1):1–29, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Physics-informed neural networks (pinns) for fluid mechanics: A review

    Shengze Cai, Zhiping Mao, Zhicheng Wang, Minglang Yin, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks (pinns) for fluid mechanics: A review. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 37(12):1727–1738, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks

    Giuseppe Carleo and Matthias Troyer. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks. Science, 355(6325):602–606, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Sympnets: Intrinsic structure-preserving symplectic networks for identifying hamiltonian systems

    Pengzhan Jin, Zhen Zhang, Aiqing Zhu, Yifa Tang, and George Em Karniadakis. Sympnets: Intrinsic structure-preserving symplectic networks for identifying hamiltonian systems. Neural Networks, 132:166– 179, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Sms: Spiking marching scheme for efficient long time integration of differential equations

    Qian Zhang, Adar Kahana, George Em Karniadakis, and Panos Stinis. Sms: Spiking marching scheme for efficient long time integration of differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 516:113363, 2024. 15

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Artificial to spiking neural networks conversion for scientific machine learning

    Qian Zhang, Chenxi Wu, Adar Kahana, Youngeun Kim, Yuhang Li, George Em Karniadakis, and Priyadarshini Panda. Artificial to spiking neural networks conversion for scientific machine learning. arXiv:2308.16372, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Theilman, Qian Zhang, Adar Kahana, Eric C

    Bradley H. Theilman, Qian Zhang, Adar Kahana, Eric C. Cyr, Nathaniel Trask, James B. Aimone, and George Em Karniadakis. Spiking physics-informed neural networks on loihi 2. 2024 Neuro Inspired Compu- tational Elements Conference (NICE), 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A comprehensive study of non-adaptive and residual-based adaptive sampling for physics-informed neural networks

    Chenxi Wu, Min Zhu, Qinyang Tan, Yadhu Kartha, and Lu Lu. A comprehensive study of non-adaptive and residual-based adaptive sampling for physics-informed neural networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 403:115671, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Randomized forward mode gradient for spiking neural networks in scientific machine learning

    Ruyin Wan, Qian Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Randomized forward mode gradient for spiking neural networks in scientific machine learning. arXiv:2411.07057, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin ˇZ ´ ıdek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Scaling deep learning for materials discovery

    Amil Merchant, Simon Batzner, Samuel S Schoenholz, Muratahan Aykol, Gowoon Cheon, and Ekin Dogus Cubuk. Scaling deep learning for materials discovery. Nature, 624(80):80–85, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Lno: Laplace neural operator for solving differential equations

    Qianying Cao, Somdatta Goswami, and George Em Karniadakis. Lno: Laplace neural operator for solving differential equations. arXiv:2303.10528, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Systems biology: Identifiability analysis and parameter identification via systems-biology informed neural networks

    Mitchell Daneker, Zhen Zhang, George Em Karniadakis, and Lu Lu. Systems biology: Identifiability analysis and parameter identification via systems-biology informed neural networks. arXiv:2202.01723, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sun, and George Em Karniadakis

    Qian Zhang, Konstantina Sampani, Mengjia Xu, Shengze Cai, Yixiang Deng, He Li, Jennifer K. Sun, and George Em Karniadakis. AOSLO-net: A Deep Learning-Based Method for Automatic Segmentation of Reti- nal Microaneurysms From Adaptive Optics Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Images. ...

    2022

  9. [17]

    An integrated framework for building trustworthy data-driven epidemiological models: Application to the covid-19 outbreak in new york city

    Sheng Zhang, Joan Ponce, Zhen Zhang, Guang Lin, and George Karniadakis. An integrated framework for building trustworthy data-driven epidemiological models: Application to the covid-19 outbreak in new york city. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(9):1–29, 09 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Iden- tifiability and predictability of integer- and fractional-order epidemiological models using physics-informed neural networks

    Ehsan Kharazmi, Min Cai, Xiaoning Zheng, Zhen Zhang, Guang Lin, and George Em Karniadakis. Iden- tifiability and predictability of integer- and fractional-order epidemiological models using physics-informed neural networks. Nature Computational Science, 1(11):744–753, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Learning nonlin- ear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning nonlin- ear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(3):218–229, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    A physics-informed variational deeponet for predicting crack path in quasi-brittle materials

    Somdatta Goswami, Minglang Yin, Yue Yu, and George Em Karniadakis. A physics-informed variational deeponet for predicting crack path in quasi-brittle materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 391:114587, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Spiking neural operators for scientific machine learning

    Adar Kahana, Qian Zhang, Leonard Gleyzer, and George Em Karniadakis. Spiking neural operators for scientific machine learning. arXiv:2205.10130, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A hybrid iterative numerical transferable solver (hints) for pdes based on deep operator network and relaxation methods

    Enrui Zhang, Adar Kahana, Eli Turkel, Rishikesh Ranade, Jay Pathak, and George Em Karniadakis. A hybrid iterative numerical transferable solver (hints) for pdes based on deep operator network and relaxation methods. arXiv:2208.13273, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv:2010.08895, 2020. 16

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Vito: Vision transformer-operator

    Oded Ovadia, Adar Kahana, Panos Stinis, Eli Turkel, Dan Givoli, and George Em Karniadakis. Vito: Vision transformer-operator. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 428:117109, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    A physics-informed diffusion model for high-fidelity flow field reconstruction

    Dule Shu, Zijie Li, and Amir Barati Farimani. A physics-informed diffusion model for high-fidelity flow field reconstruction. Journal of Computational Physics, 478:111972, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Nsfnets (navier-stokes flow nets): Physics- informed neural networks for the incompressible navier-stokes equations

    Xiaowei Jin, Shengze Cai, Hui Li, and George Em Karniadakis. Nsfnets (navier-stokes flow nets): Physics- informed neural networks for the incompressible navier-stokes equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 426:109951, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations

    Maziar Raissi, Alireza Yazdani, and George Em Karniadakis. Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations. Science, 367(6481):1026–1030, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Artificial intelligence velocimetry and microaneurysm-on-a-chip for three-dimensional analysis of blood flow in physiology and disease

    Shengze Cai, He Li, Fuyin Zheng, Fang Kong, Ming Dao, George Em Karniadakis, and Subra Suresh. Artificial intelligence velocimetry and microaneurysm-on-a-chip for three-dimensional analysis of blood flow in physiology and disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Physics-informed neural networks enhanced par- ticle tracking velocimetry: An example for turbulent jet flow

    Shengze Cai, Callum Gray, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks enhanced par- ticle tracking velocimetry: An example for turbulent jet flow. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Artificial intelligence velocimetry reveals in vivo flow rates, pressure gradients, and shear stresses in murine perivascular flows

    Kimberly AS Boster, Shengze Cai, Antonio Ladr´ on-de Guevara, Jiatong Sun, Xiaoning Zheng, Ting Du, John H Thomas, Maiken Nedergaard, George Em Karniadakis, and Douglas H Kelley. Artificial intelligence velocimetry reveals in vivo flow rates, pressure gradients, and shear stre...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Inferring turbulent velocity and temperature fields and their statistics from lagrangian velocity measurements using physics-informed Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks

    Juan Diego Toscano, Theo K¨ aufer, Martin Maxey, Christian Cierpka, and George Em Karniadakis. Inferring turbulent velocity and temperature fields and their statistics from lagrangian velocity measurements using physics-informed Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks. arXiv:2407.15727, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Energy transformer

    Benjamin Hoover, Yuchen Liang, Bao Pham, Rameswar Panda, Hendrik Strobelt, Duen Horng Chau, Mo- hammed Zaki, and Dmitry Krotov. Energy transformer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Dense associative memory for pattern recognition

    Dmitry Krotov and John J Hopfield. Dense associative memory for pattern recognition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    A new frontier for hopfield networks

    Dmitry Krotov. A new frontier for hopfield networks. Nature Reviews Physics, 5(7):366–367, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities

    John J Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 79(8):2554–2558, 1982

    1982

  29. [37]

    Large associative memory problem in neurobiology and machine learning

    Dmitry Krotov and John J Hopfield. Large associative memory problem in neurobiology and machine learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Hierarchical associative memory

    Dmitry Krotov. Hierarchical associative memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06446, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Deep learning of vortex-induced vibrations

    Maziar Raissi, Zhicheng Wang, Michael S Triantafyllou, and George Em Karniadakis. Deep learning of vortex-induced vibrations. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 861:119–137, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    A review of recent developments in schlieren and shadowgraph techniques

    Gary S Settles and Michael J Hargather. A review of recent developments in schlieren and shadowgraph techniques. Measurement Science and Technology, 28(4):042001, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Deep-learning- based super-resolution reconstruction of high-speed imaging in fluids

    Zhibo Wang, Xiangru Li, Luhan Liu, Xuecheng Wu, Pengfei Hao, Xiwen Zhang, and Feng He. Deep-learning- based super-resolution reconstruction of high-speed imaging in fluids. Physics of Fluids, 34(3), 2022. 17

    2022

  34. [42]

    Physics-informed neural networks enhanced par- ticle tracking velocimetry: An example for turbulent jet flow

    Shengze Cai, Callum Gray, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks enhanced par- ticle tracking velocimetry: An example for turbulent jet flow. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024. 18

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.