Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

End-to-end optimization of subgrid scale models for discontinuous spectral element schemes based on the discrete adjoint method

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A discrete adjoint framework optimizes subgrid-scale model parameters inside a spectral difference LES solver.

desk verdict The paper gives a working discrete-adjoint loop for tuning SGS parameters inside a spectral-difference solver, but the Legendre-mode decay objective leaves open whether the gains are physically meaningful or just damping artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.01150 v1 pith:KIJQDDJS submitted 2026-05-31 physics.flu-dyn

Nicola Clinco , Niccolò Tonicello , Paola Cinnella , Gianluigi Rozza This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords largeeddysimulationsubgridscalemodelingdiscreteadjointmethodspectraldifferenceschemeparameteroptimizationhomogeneousisotropicturbulenceTaylor-Greenvortex
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

The paper develops an end-to-end optimization approach for subgrid-scale models in discontinuous spectral element methods for large-eddy simulation. It employs the discrete adjoint method within a Spectral Difference solver to tune model parameters using filtered DNS data from homogeneous isotropic turbulence. The objective function is the averaged decay rate of Legendre modal coefficients, chosen for stability in chaotic flows. Optimized versions of the Smagorinsky model and nonlinear tensor models are tested on multiple configurations and show better performance than standard closures on both training and out-of-sample cases such as decaying turbulence and Taylor-Green vortex.

What carries the argument

The discrete adjoint method applied to the Spectral Difference scheme, with the objective function defined as the spatio-temporally averaged decay of Legendre modal coefficients.

What would settle it

An independent test case in which the optimized SGS model produces larger errors than the baseline model in key turbulence statistics would falsify the improvement claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that optimizing a limited set of parameters in classical and nonlinear SGS models through a discrete adjoint framework inside the SD discretization produces models that achieve significant improvements over baseline closures in forced and decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence as well as the Taylor-Green vortex, with robustness across resolutions, polynomial orders, and Reynolds numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The spatio-temporally averaged decay of the Legendre modal coefficients provides a suitable and stable objective function for the optimization in chaotic LES systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The optimized SGS models generalize to out-of-sample flow configurations including decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence and the Taylor-Green vortex.
  • Performance gains hold across variations in grid resolution, polynomial order, and Reynolds number.
  • Both the Smagorinsky model and non-linear tensor-basis formulations benefit from the parameter optimization.
  • The methodology applies to both one-dimensional Burgers turbulence and three-dimensional cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework could extend to other high-order discontinuous methods for turbulence modeling.
  • Different objective functions might further improve optimization stability in other chaotic flow regimes.
  • Such tuned models could reduce the need for manual calibration when applying LES to engineering flows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a discrete-adjoint optimization framework, leveraging automatic differentiation in a high-order Spectral Difference solver, to calibrate parameters of classical SGS models (Smagorinsky and nonlinear tensor-basis forms) against filtered DNS data. The objective is the spatio-temporally averaged decay rate of Legendre modal coefficients; optimization is performed on forced HIT at varying resolutions and polynomial orders, with out-of-sample assessment on decaying HIT and Taylor-Green vortex. The central claim is that the resulting models yield significant improvements over baseline closures in all tested configurations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work offers a systematic route to SGS-model calibration that accounts for the interaction with a specific high-order discretization, which is a recognized challenge in LES. The explicit use of the discrete adjoint for end-to-end optimization in chaotic turbulent flows is a methodological strength that could be adopted more broadly if the chosen objective is shown to produce physically consistent models.

major comments (2)
  1. [objective-function paragraph] The paragraph describing the objective function (abstract and methods): the manuscript asserts that the spatio-temporally averaged decay of Legendre modal coefficients is a suitable and stable objective for chaotic LES optimization, yet provides no demonstration that minimization of this scalar produces correct inter-scale energy transfer, kinetic-energy spectra, or dissipation rates on the out-of-sample DHIT and Taylor-Green cases. If the functional primarily damps high-mode energy without enforcing spectral shape, the reported improvements may be limited to the training objective and not generalize to physically relevant diagnostics.
  2. [out-of-sample assessment] Results section on out-of-sample tests: the claim of 'significant improvements over baseline SGS closures' in all test cases is load-bearing for the central contribution, but the manuscript supplies no quantitative metrics (e.g., relative error reduction in spectra or structure functions, convergence histories of the adjoint optimization, or error bars across realizations). Without these data it is impossible to judge whether the improvements are robust or merely marginal.
minor comments (1)
  1. [methods] Notation for the modal-coefficient decay rate should be defined explicitly with an equation number rather than described only in prose.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [objective-function paragraph] The paragraph describing the objective function (abstract and methods): the manuscript asserts that the spatio-temporally averaged decay of Legendre modal coefficients is a suitable and stable objective for chaotic LES optimization, yet provides no demonstration that minimization of this scalar produces correct inter-scale energy transfer, kinetic-energy spectra, or dissipation rates on the out-of-sample DHIT and Taylor-Green cases. If the functional primarily damps high-mode energy without enforcing spectral shape, the reported improvements may be limited to the training objective and not generalize to physically relevant diagnostics.

    Authors: The objective was selected because matching modal decay rates from filtered DNS directly encodes the correct inter-scale transfer for the SD discretization. We agree additional evidence is needed and will add kinetic-energy spectra, dissipation-rate comparisons, and inter-scale transfer diagnostics for the out-of-sample cases in the revision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [out-of-sample assessment] Results section on out-of-sample tests: the claim of 'significant improvements over baseline SGS closures' in all test cases is load-bearing for the central contribution, but the manuscript supplies no quantitative metrics (e.g., relative error reduction in spectra or structure functions, convergence histories of the adjoint optimization, or error bars across realizations). Without these data it is impossible to judge whether the improvements are robust or merely marginal.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative support is required. The revised manuscript will report relative error reductions on spectra and structure functions, adjoint optimization convergence histories, and error bars from multiple realizations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper optimizes a small set of SGS parameters by minimizing a modal-decay objective against filtered DNS data within a discrete-adjoint loop, then evaluates the resulting models on explicitly out-of-sample configurations (DHIT, Taylor-Green vortex) at varied resolutions and Reynolds numbers. No derivation step equates a claimed prediction to its own fitted inputs by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation chain; the reported improvements are therefore externally falsifiable and independent of the training data used for optimization.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Ledger constructed from abstract only; full paper would allow more precise identification of fitted quantities and background assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • SGS model parameters (Smagorinsky constant and nonlinear coefficients)
    A limited set of parameters for classical SGS models are optimized against filtered DNS data.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The spatio-temporally averaged decay of Legendre modal coefficients is an appropriate objective for chaotic turbulent flows.
    Abstract explicitly states that the choice of objective function plays a crucial role in stability and accuracy for LES.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of End-to-end optimization of subgrid scale models for discontinuous spectral element schemes based on the discrete adjoint method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIJQDDJS

@misc{pith2026260601150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: End-to-end optimization of subgrid scale models for discontinuous spectral element schemes based on the discrete adjoint method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIJQDDJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.01150}
}
read the original abstract

In computational fluid dynamics, Large Eddy Simulation (LES) offers a compelling balance between accuracy and computational cost by resolving large-scale flow structures while modeling unresolved subgrid scales. However, its predictive capacity is critically dependent on the choice and calibration of subgrid-scale (SGS) models, which often involve problem-dependent parameters and exhibit intricate interactions with the numerical discretization. In this work, we propose a discrete-adjoint framework to optimize SGS model parameters in the loop, leveraging automatic differentiation within a high-order Spectral Difference (SD) solver. Coarse-grained simulations of Forced Homogeneous Isotropic Turbulence (FHIT), together with filtered Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) data, are used to optimize a limited set of parameters for classical SGS models, including the Smagorinsky model and non-linear tensor-basis formulations. For chaotic systems such as LES, the choice of objective function plays a crucial role in the stability and accuracy of the optimization. Here, we consider the spatio-temporally averaged decay of the Legendre modal coefficients as the quantity of interest for the SD scheme. The optimization is performed across different grid resolutions and polynomial orders, highlighting the impact of numerical discretization on model performance. The methodology is applied to both one-dimensional Burgers turbulence and fully three-dimensional turbulence. The trained models are subsequently assessed on out-of-sample configurations, including Decaying Homogeneous Isotropic Turbulence (DHIT) and the Taylor-Green vortex. Variations in polynomial order, grid resolution, and Reynolds number are considered to evaluate robustness and generalization. In all test cases, the optimized models demonstrate significant improvements over baseline SGS closures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01150 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dispersion curves for Spectral Difference (left) and Discontinuous Galerkin (right) methods for order from p = 3 to p = 7 (color gradient from ocher to black). Dashed line indicates the analytical solution. In this section we introduced the SD scheme for a general one-dimensional conservation law including both first- and second-order terms. We also briefly mentioned the more simplified setting of linear advection, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Disssipation curves for Spectral Difference (left) and Discontinuous Galerkin (right) methods for order from p = 3 to p = 7 (color gradient from ocher to black). Dashed line indicates the analytical solution. designed to act as an implicit SGS model, providing an appropriate level of numerical dissipation at small scales. Another part of the turbulence modeling community instead relies on numerical schemes that intr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic diagram of the optimization algorithm. of introducing spurious effects due to the chaotic nature of the system increases. As a result, a tradeoff between these limit cases needs to be considered. At the same time, constructing a loss function based only on quantities sampled at the final time is not effective because of the chaotic nature of the solution. Identifying the mechanisms underlying a given eff… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A schematic drawing of the computational stencil for the spectral difference scheme. Stencil for the inviscid (left) and viscous (right) operators. The wider stencil arises from the coupling introduced by the gradient computation. In fact, as ex￾plained in Section 3, t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Assembly of the right hand side operator and reverse-mode mode compu￾tation of the vector-jacobian product. For the computation of the right hand side, following the green arrows: the state vector is interpolated to flux points, where invis￾cid and viscous fluxes are e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kinetic energy spectra for various resolutions and for different polynomial orders considered in the study. Symbols indicate the reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the modal energy (36) for different polynomial orders and different resolutions in the Burgers case. In this framework, Legendre modes can be interpreted similarly to Fourier modes: low-order modes are associated with large-scale structures, whereas higher-order …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between solutions at t = 400s for p = 7 for the coarsest (Ndof = 1024) and the finest resolution (Ndof = 4096). The solution with Ndof = 1024 contains many wiggles as a consequence of under-resolution. In the previous paragraphs, we discussed the role played…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the kinetic energy spectrum between ILESs and optimized Smagorinsky for different polynomial orders for Ndof = 2048. Solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky; dotted lines, ILES. Symbols indicate the reference. 6.1. Optimization of the Smagorinsky constant. Li…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the kinetic energy spectrum between ILESs and the opti￾mized Smagorinsky for different polynomial orders for the coarsest (Ndof = 1024) and the finest resolution (Ndof = 4096). Solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky; dotted lines, ILES. Symbols indicate the …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Schematic of the 3D FHIT methodology: a forward run over ∆T1 is first performed, after which sensitivities are computed using the adjoint loop over the interval ∆T. 100 101 102 k 10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 E ( k ) DNS fDNS k−5/3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example of instantaneous vorticity field (left) and spatio-temporally aver￾aged kinetic energy spectrum (right) for the FHIT case. The filtered DNS, shown in the right figure in red, refers to the cutoff ∆LES = 4∆DNS which corresponds to a total of number of degrees o…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Normalized loss functions for different polynomial orders for Ndof = 64 (left) and for Ndof = 80 (right). about 30 iterations for both resolutions. The loss function decreases smoothly for all polynomial orders indicating that the overall procedure is stable and, with…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the modal decay obtained at the beginning of the optimiza￾tion and the optimized one for the various polynomial orders. Top row, Ndof = 64; Bottom row, Ndof = 80. Solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky model; dotted lines, base￾line model (Cs = 0.187). Lines…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Time and space-averaged modal energy for different polynomial orders. Solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky; dotted lines ILES. Line with symbols indicate the filtered DNS. 1 2 3 4 5 N 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 bEi 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N p = 4 p = 5 p = 6 [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Time and space-averaged modal energy for different polynomial orders. Solid lines, ∆T = 1; dash-dotted lines ∆T = 0.02. Line with symbols indicate the filtered DNS. from the projection of the filtered DNS onto the LES grid. Consequently, all the analyses on the modal …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Time evolution of the kinetic energy (left) and viscous dissipation (right) for NDoF = 64. Solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky model; dotted lines, ILES. Symbols indicate the filtered DNS data at the given resolution. In contrast, the optimized model shows good agreeme…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Kinetic energy (left) and viscous dissipation (right) spectra for Ndof = 64 computed at t = 1. Solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky model; dotted lines, ILES. Symbols indicate the filtered DNS data at the given resolution. 0 5 10 15 20 t 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Averaged viscous dissipation for the TGV case at Re = 5000 using the optimized Smagorinsky model (solid lines) and baseline Smagorinsky (dashed lines) for different resolutions and different polynomial orders. From left to right: 643 , 803 and 963 . Symbols indicate t…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Averaged viscous dissipation for the TGV case at Re = 1600 for differ￾ent resolutions. From left to right: 643 , 803 and 963 . Purple solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky model; purple dashed lines, baseline Smagorinsky model. Symbols indi￾cate the filtered DNS data at …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Averaged kinetic energy for the TGV case at Re = 1600 for different reso￾lutions. From left to right: 643 , 803 and 963 . Purple solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky model; purple dashed lines, baseline Smagorinsky model. Symbols indicate the filtered DNS data at the gi…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Averaged viscous dissipation for the TGV case at Re = 5000 for different resolutions and polynomial orders. From left to right: 643 , 803 and 963 . From top to bottom: p = 4, p = 5 and p = 6. Solid lines, optimized Smagorinsky model at resolution 643 ; dash-dotted lin…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: TB3 model. Normalized-loss functions for different polynomial orders for Ndof = 64 (left) and for Ndof = 80 (right). This observation establishes a link between the proposed tensor-basis model and the Clark model, showing that the latter can be interpreted as a specif…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Averaged viscous dissipation for the TGV case at Re = 5000 for different resolutions and polynomial orders. From left to right: 643 , 803 , 963 . Solid lines, TB3 model at resolution 803 ; dashed lines, TB3 model at resolution 643 ; blue dash-dotted lines, GEP2 from […
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Averaged kinetic energy for the TGV case at Re = 5000 for different resolutions and polynomial orders. From left to right: 643 , 803 , 963 . Solid lines, TB3 model at resolution 803 ; dashed lines, TB3 model at resolution 643 ; blue dash-dotted lines, GEP2 from [92]; …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A novel compact scheme for second-order fluxes applied to the Spectral Difference method

    math.NA 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A compact, parameter-free centered viscous flux for the Spectral Difference method reduces the diffusive stencil from five to three elements and restores optimal convergence at even polynomial orders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. D. Agdestein and B. Sanderse. Discretize first, filter next: Learning divergence-consistent closure models for large-eddy simulation.Journal of Computational Physics, 522:113577, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    S. D. Agdestein and B. Sanderse. A differentiable software suite for accelerated simulation of turbulent flows, 2026

    2026

  3. [3]

    A. S. Ashley, J. Crean, and J. E. Hicken. Towards aerodynamic shape optimization of unsteady turbulent flows. In AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, page 0168, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Balay, S

    S. Balay, S. Abhyankar, M. F. Adams, S. Benson, J. Brown, P. Brune, K. Buschelman, E. M. Constantinescu, L. Dalcin, A. Dener, V. Eijkhout, J. Faibussowitsch, W. D. Gropp, V. Hapla, T. Isaac, P. Jolivet, D. Karpeev, D. Kaushik, M. G. Knepley, F. Kong, S. Kruger, D. A. May, L. C. McInnes, R. T. Mills, L. Mitchell, T. Munson, J. E. Roman, K. Rupp, P. Sanan, ...

    2025

  5. [5]

    Bardina, J

    J. Bardina, J. Ferziger, and W. Reynolds.Improved subgrid-scale models for large-eddy simulation

  6. [6]

    A. Beck, D. Flad, and C.-D. Munz. Deep neural networks for data-driven les closure models.Journal of Computational Physics, 398:108910, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    A. Beck, G. Gassner, and C.-D. Munz. High order and underresolution. In R. Ansorge, H. Bijl, A. Meister, and T. Sonar, editors,Recent Developments in the Numerics of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Conservation Laws, volume 120 of Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, pages 41–55. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. Lectures Presented at a W...

    2013

  8. [8]

    Beck and M

    A. Beck and M. Kurz. Toward discretization-consistent closure schemes for large eddy simulation using reinforcement learning.Physics of Fluids, 35(12), 2023. OPTIMIZATION OF SGS MODELS FOR DSE SCHEMES BASED ON THE DISCRETE ADJOINT METHOD 31

    2023

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    A. D. Beck, T. Bolemann, D. Flad, H. Frank, G. J. Gassner, F. Hindenlang, and C.-D. Munz. High-order discon- tinuous Galerkin spectral element methods for transitional and turbulent flow simulations.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 76(8):522–548, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    T. R. Bewley, P. Moin, and R. Temam. Dns-based predictive control of turbulence: an optimal benchmark for feedback algorithms.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 447:179–225, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    D. A. Bezgin, A. B. Buhendwa, and N. A. Adams. Jax-fluids 2.0: Towards hpc for differentiable cfd of compressible two-phase flows.Computer Physics Communications, 308:109433, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    D. A. Bezgin, A. B. Buhendwa, S. J. Schmidt, and N. A. Adams. Ml-iles: End-to-end optimization of data-driven high-order godunov-type finite-volume schemes for compressible homogeneous isotropic turbulence.Journal of Com- putational Physics, 522:113560, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Biferale

    L. Biferale. The decay of homogeneous anisotropic turbulence.Physics of Fluids, 15(8):2105–2112, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    P.J.Blonigan.New methods for sensitivity analysis of chaotic dynamical systems.PhDthesis, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Chapelier

    J.-B. Chapelier. A coherent vorticity preserving eddy-viscosity correction for large-eddy simulation.Journal of Com- putational Physics, 359:164–182, 2018

    2018

  8. [17]

    Chapelier and G

    J.-B. Chapelier and G. Lodato. A spectral-element dynamic model for the large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 321:279–302, 2016

    2016

  9. [18]

    Chapelier and G

    J.-B. Chapelier and G. Lodato. Optimal high-order spectral difference schemes for the computation of aeroacoustics and turbulence. In55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, page 1228, 2017

    2017

  10. [19]

    J. R. Chasnov. The decay of axisymmetric homogeneous turbulence.Physics of Fluids, 7(3):600–605, 03 1995

    1995

  11. [20]

    F. K. Chow and P. Moin. A further study of numerical errors in Large-Eddy Simulations.Journal of Computational Physics, 184(2):366–380, 2003

    2003

  12. [21]

    R. A. Clark, J. H. Ferziger, and W. C. Reynolds. Evaluation of subgrid-scale models using an accurately simulated turbulent flow.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 91(1):1–16, 1979

    1979

  13. [22]

    Clinco, N

    N. Clinco, N. Tonicello, and G. Rozza. A data-driven study on implicit les using a spectral difference method.Journal of Computational Physics, 540:114302, 2025

    2025

  14. [23]

    Cockburn and C

    B. Cockburn and C. Shu. The local discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for convection-diffusion systems. SIAM Journal of Numerical Analysis, 35:2440–2463, 1998

    1998

  15. [24]

    Cockburn and C

    B. Cockburn and C. Shu. The Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for conservation laws V: Multidimensional systems.Journal of Computational Physics, 141:199–224, 1998

    1998

  16. [25]

    M.deCrouy-Chanel, C.Mimeau, I.Mortazavi, A.Mariotti, andM.V.Salvetti.Large-eddysimulationswithremeshed vortex methods: An assessment and calibration of subgrid-scale models.Computers & Fluids, 277:106287, 2024

    2024

  17. [26]

    de Laage de Meux, B

    B. de Laage de Meux, B. Audebert, R. Manceau, and R. Perrin. Anisotropic linear forcing for synthetic turbulence generation in large eddy simulation and hybrid rans/les modeling.Physics of Fluids, 27(3):035115, 03 2015

    2015

  18. [27]

    C. C. De Wiart, K. Hillewaert, L. Bricteux, and G. Winckelmans. Implicit les of free and wall-bounded turbulent flows based on the discontinuous galerkin/symmetric interior penalty method.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 78(6):335–354, 2015

    2015

  19. [28]

    Duraisamy, G

    K. Duraisamy, G. Iaccarino, and H. Xiao. Turbulence modeling in the age of data.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 51(Volume 51, 2019):357–377, 2019

    2019

  20. [29]

    Fernandez, R

    P. Fernandez, R. C. Moura, G. Mengaldo, and J. Peraire. Non-modal analysis of spectral element methods: Towards accurate and robust large-eddy simulations.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 346:43–62, 2019

    2019

  21. [30]

    Fernandez, N.-C

    P. Fernandez, N.-C. Nguyen, and J. Peraire. Subgrid-scale modeling and implicit numerical dissipation in dg-based large-eddy simulation. In23rd AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, page 3951, 2017

    2017

  22. [31]

    Fernandez, N.-C

    P. Fernandez, N.-C. Nguyen, and J. Peraire. On the ability of Discontinuous Galerkin methods to simulate under- resolved turbulent flows. 2018

    2018

  23. [32]

    Fernandez, N.-C

    P. Fernandez, N.-C. Nguyen, and J. Peraire. On the ability of discontinuous Galerkin methods to simulate under- resolved turbulent flows.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09435, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Garnier, N

    E. Garnier, N. A. Adams, and P. Sagaut.Large-Eddy Simulation for compressible flows, volume 276. Springer, 2009

    2009

  25. [34]

    Gassner and D

    G. Gassner and D. A. Kopriva. A comparison of the dispersion and dissipation errors of gauss and gauss–lobatto discontinuous galerkin spectral element methods.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 33(5):2560–2579, 2011

    2011

  26. [35]

    Germano, U

    M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, and W. H. Cabot. A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model.Physics of fluids A: Fluid dynamics, 3(7):1760–1765, 1991

    1991

  27. [36]

    Ghiasi, J

    Z. Ghiasi, J. Komperda, D. Li, A. Peyvan, D. Nicholls, and F. Mashayek. Modal explicit filtering for Large Eddy simulation in discontinuous spectral element method.Journal of Computational Physics: X, 3:100024, 2019

    2019

  28. [37]

    S.Ghosal.AnanalysisofnumericalerrorsinLarge-Eddysimulationsofturbulence.Journal of Computational Physics, 125(1):187–206, 1996

    1996

  29. [38]

    M. B. Giles and N. A. Pierce. An introduction to the adjoint approach to design.Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 65(3):393–415, Dec 2000

    2000

  30. [39]

    Gloerfelt and P

    X. Gloerfelt and P. Cinnella. Large eddy simulation requirements for the flow over periodic hills.Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 103(1):55–91, 2019

    2019

  31. [40]

    R. W. Grinstein FF, Margolin LG.Implicit Large-Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics. Cam- bridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  32. [41]

    Guastoni

    L. Guastoni. Predictions of turbulent shear flows using deep neural networks.Physical Review Fluids, 4(5):054603, 2019

    2019

  33. [42]

    M. D. Gunzburger.Perspectives in Flow Control and Optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2002. 32 OPTIMIZATION OF SGS MODELS FOR DSE SCHEMES BASED ON THE DISCRETE ADJOINT METHOD

    2002

  34. [43]

    Hascoet and V

    L. Hascoet and V. Pascual. The tapenade automatic differentiation tool: Principles, model, and specification.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 39(3), May 2013

    2013

  35. [44]

    J. S. Hesthaven and T. Warburton.Nodal discontinuous Galerkin methods: algorithms, analysis, and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  36. [45]

    J. S. Hesthaven and T. Warburton.Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Methods: Algorithms, Analysis, and Applications. Springer, 2008

    2008

  37. [46]

    Hinze, R

    M. Hinze, R. Pinnau, M. Ulbrich, and S. Ulbrich.Optimization with PDE Constraints, volume 23 ofMathematical Modelling: Theory and Applications. Springer, Dordrecht / New York / Heidelberg, 1 edition, 2009

    2009

  38. [47]

    K. Horiuti. Roles of non-aligned eigenvectors of strain-rate and subgrid-scale stress tensors in turbulence generation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 491:65–100, Sept. 2003

    2003

  39. [48]

    Huang, S

    X. Huang, S. C. Leung, and H. J. Bae. Consistency requirement of data-driven subgrid-scale modeling in large-eddy simulation.Physical Review Fluids, 11(1):014602, 2026

    2026

  40. [49]

    H. T. Huynh. A flux reconstruction approach to high-order schemes including Discontinuous Galerkin methods. In AIAA Paper, 2007-4079, 2007

    2007

  41. [50]

    A. Jameson. Aerodynamic design via control theory.Journal of Scientific Computing, 3(3):233–260, Sep 1988

    1988

  42. [51]

    Jouhaud, P

    J.-C. Jouhaud, P. Sagaut, B. Enaux, and J. Laurenceau. Sensitivity analysis and multiobjective optimization for les numerical parameters.Journal of Fluids Engineering, 130(2):021401, 01 2008

    2008

  43. [52]

    G. K. Kenway, C. A. Mader, P. He, and J. R. Martins. Effective adjoint approaches for computational fluid dynamics. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 110:100542, 2019

    2019

  44. [53]

    J. Kim, D. J. Bodony, and J. B. Freund. Adjoint-based control of loud events in a turbulent jet.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 741:28–59, 2014

    2014

  45. [54]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  46. [55]

    D. A. Kopriva and J. H. Kolias. A conservative staggered-grid Chebyshev multidomain method for compressible flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 125:244–261, 1996

    1996

  47. [56]

    J. Kou, O. A. Marino, and E. Ferrer. Jump penalty stabilization techniques for under-resolved turbulence in discon- tinuous galerkin schemes.Journal of Computational Physics, 491:112399, 2023

    2023

  48. [57]

    Kravchenko and P

    A. Kravchenko and P. Moin. On the effect of numerical errors in Large-Eddy simulations of turbulent flows.Journal of Computational Physics, 131(2):310–322, 1997

    1997

  49. [58]

    M. Kurz, P. Offenhäuser, and A. Beck. Deep reinforcement learning for turbulence modeling in large eddy simulations. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 99:109094, 2023

    2023

  50. [59]

    List, L.-W

    B. List, L.-W. Chen, and N. Thuerey. Learned turbulence modelling with differentiable fluid solvers: physics-based loss functions and optimisation horizons.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 949:A25, 2022

    2022

  51. [60]

    Y. Liu, M. Vinokur, and Z. Wang. Spectral difference method for unstructured grids I: basic formulation.Journal of Computational Physics, 216(2):780–801, 2006

    2006

  52. [61]

    G. Lodato. Characteristic modal shock detection for discontinuous finite element methods.Computers & Fluids, 179:309–333, 2019

    2019

  53. [62]

    Lucor, J

    D. Lucor, J. Mayers, and P. Sagaut. Sensitivity analysis of large-eddy simulations to subgrid-scale-model parametric uncertainty using polynomial chaos.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 585:255–279, 2007

    2007

  54. [63]

    J. F. MacArt, J. Sirignano, and J. B. Freund. Embedded training of neural-network subgrid-scale turbulence models. Physical Review Fluids, 6(5):050502, 2021

    2021

  55. [64]

    Manzanero, E

    J. Manzanero, E. Ferrer, G. Rubio, and E. Valero. Design of a smagorinsky spectral vanishing viscosity turbulence model for discontinuous galerkin methods.Computers & Fluids, 200:104440, 2020

    2020

  56. [65]

    Manzanero, G

    J. Manzanero, G. Rubio, E. Ferrer, and E. Valero. Dispersion-dissipation analysis for advection problems with non- constant coefficients: Applications to discontinuous Galerkin formulations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 40(2):A747–A768, 2018

    2018

  57. [66]

    Marchal.Extension of the Spectral Difference method to combustion

    T. Marchal.Extension of the Spectral Difference method to combustion. Theses, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse - INPT, Apr. 2023

    2023

  58. [67]

    Marchal, H

    T. Marchal, H. Deniau, J.-F. Boussuge, B. Cuenot, and R. Mercier. Extension of the Spectral Difference Method to Premixed Laminar and Turbulent Combustion.Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 110(Issue 3), Apr. 2023

    2023

  59. [68]

    J. R. R. A. Martins and A. Ning.Engineering Design Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2021

    2021

  60. [69]

    Maulik and O

    R. Maulik and O. San. Explicit and implicit les closures for burgers turbulence.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 327:12–40, 2018

    2018

  61. [70]

    MCMILLAN and J

    O. MCMILLAN and J. FERZIGER.Direct testing of subgrid-scale models

  62. [71]

    Meneveau and J

    C. Meneveau and J. Katz. Scale-invariance and turbulence models for large-eddy simulation.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 32(Volume 32, 2000):1–32, 2000

    2000

  63. [72]

    Mengaldo, D

    G. Mengaldo, D. De Grazia, R. C. Moura, and S. J. Sherwin. Spatial eigensolution analysis of energy-stable flux reconstruction schemes and influence of the numerical flux on accuracy and robustness.Journal of Computational Physics, 358:1–20, 2018

    2018

  64. [73]

    Mengaldo, R

    G. Mengaldo, R. Moura, B. Giralda, J. Peiró, and S. Sherwin. Spatial eigensolution analysis of Discontinuous Galerkin schemes with practical insights for under-resolved computations and implicit LES.Computers & Fluids, 169:349–364, 2018

    2018

  65. [74]

    Meyers, P

    J. Meyers, P. Sagaut, and B. J. Geurts. Optimal model parameters for multi-objective large-eddy simulations.Physics of Fluids, 18(9):095103, 09 2006

    2006

  66. [75]

    Moura, M

    R. Moura, M. Aman, J. Peiró, and S. Sherwin. Spatial eigenanalysis of spectral/hp continuous Galerkin schemes and their stabilisation via dg-mimicking spectral vanishing viscosity: Application to high reynolds number flows.Journal of Computational Physics, page 109112, 2019

    2019

  67. [76]

    Moura, S

    R. Moura, S. Sherwin, and J. Peiró. Linear dispersion–diffusion analysis and its application to under-resolved turbu- lence simulations using discontinuous galerkin spectral/hp methods.Journal of Computational Physics, 298:695–710, 2015. OPTIMIZATION OF SGS MODELS FOR DSE SCHE...

    2015

  68. [77]

    R. C. Moura, A. da Silva, E. Burman, and S. J. Sherwin. Eigenanalysis of gradient-jump penalty (gjp) stabilisation for cg. Technical report, Tech. rep., Technical report. https://doi. org/10.13140/RG. 2.2. 32887.85924, 2020

    2020 doi

  69. [78]

    R. C. Moura, G. Mengaldo, J. Peiró, and S. J. Sherwin. On the eddy-resolving capability of high-order discontinuous Galerkin approaches to implicit LES/under-resolved DNS of Euler turbulence.Journal of Computational Physics, 330:615–623, 2017

    2017

  70. [79]

    R.C.Moura, S.J.Sherwin, andJ.Peiró.Lineardispersion–diffusionanalysisanditsapplicationtounder-resolvedtur- bulence simulations using discontinuous Galerkin spectral/hp methods.Journal of Computational Physics, 298:695– 710, 2015

    2015

  71. [80]

    Nadarajah and A

    S. Nadarajah and A. Jameson. Studies of the continuous and discrete adjoint approaches to viscous automatic aerodynamic shape optimization. In15th AIAA computational fluid dynamics conference, page 2530

  72. [81]

    Nadarajah and A

    S. Nadarajah and A. Jameson. A comparison of the continuous and discrete adjoint approach to automatic aerody- namic optimization. In38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2000

    2000

  73. [82]

    Naddei, M

    F. Naddei, M. de la Llave Plata, and E. Lamballais. Spectral and modal energy transfer analyses of les using the discontinuous galerkin method and their application to the variational multiscale approach.Journal of Computational Physics, 427:110031, 2021

    2021

  74. [83]

    Nicoud and F

    F. Nicoud and F. Ducros. Subgrid-scale stress modelling based on the square of the velocity gradient tensor.Flow, turbulence and Combustion, 62(3):183–200, 1999

    1999

  75. [84]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright.Numerical Optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engi- neering. Springer, 2 edition, 2006

    2006

  76. [85]

    Ou and A

    K. Ou and A. Jameson.Unsteady Adjoint Method for the Optimal Control of Advection and Burger’s Equations Using High-Order Spectral Difference Method. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011

    2011

  77. [86]

    J. E. Peter and R. P. Dwight. Numerical sensitivity analysis for aerodynamic optimization: A survey of approaches. Computers & Fluids, 39(3):373–391, 2010

    2010

  78. [87]

    Piomelli

    U. Piomelli. Large-Eddy simulation: achievements and challenges.Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 35(4):335–362, 1999

    1999

  79. [88]

    Piomelli, J

    U. Piomelli, J. Ferziger, P. Moin, et al. Model consistency in large eddy simulation of turbulent channel flows.Physics of Fluids, 31(7):1884, 1988

    1988

  80. [89]

    Prakash, K

    A. Prakash, K. E. Jansen, and J. A. Evans. Invariant data-driven subgrid stress modeling in the strain-rate eigenframe for large eddy simulation.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 399:115457, 2022

    2022

  81. [90]

    Ranjbar, D

    M. Ranjbar, D. A. B. Fernandez, F. Mashayek, and J. Komperda.Application of Modal Representation for Instan- taneous Statistical Analysis of Flows Simulated with Spectral Element Method

  82. [91]

    Ranjbar, J

    M. Ranjbar, J. Komperda, and F. Mashayek.Dynamic Explicit Modal Filtering for Large-Eddy Simulation of Tur- bulent Flows with Spectral Element Method

  83. [92]

    Reissmann, J

    M. Reissmann, J. Hasslberger, R. D. Sandberg, and M. Klein. Application of gene expression programming to a- posteriori les modeling of a taylor green vortex.Journal of Computational Physics, 424:109859, 2021

    2021

  84. [93]

    R. S. Rogallo.Numerical experiments in homogeneous turbulence, volume 81315. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1981

    1981

  85. [94]

    P. Sagaut. Large-Eddy simulation for incompressible flows. an introduction.Measurement Science and Technology, 12(10):1745, oct 2001

    2001

  86. [95]

    Sanderse, P

    B. Sanderse, P. Stinis, R. Maulik, and S. E. Ahmed. Scientific machine learning for closure models in multiscale problems: A review.Foundations of Data Science, 7(1):298–337, 2025

    2025

  87. [96]

    Scott Collis, K

    S. Scott Collis, K. Ghayour, M. Heinkenschloss, M. Ulbrich, and S. Ulbrich. Optimal control of unsteady compressible viscous flows.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 40(11):1401–1429, 2002

    2002

  88. [97]

    Shankar, D

    V. Shankar, D. Chakraborty, V. Viswanathan, and R. Maulik. Differentiable turbulence: Closure as a partial differ- ential equation constrained optimization.Physical Review Fluids, 10:024605, Feb 2025

    2025

  89. [98]

    Sirignano and J

    J. Sirignano and J. F. MacArt. Deep learning closure models for large-eddy simulation of flows around bluff bodies. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 966:A26, 2023

    2023

  90. [99]

    Sirignano, J

    J. Sirignano, J. F. MacArt, and J. B. Freund. Dpm: A deep learning pde augmentation method with application to Large Eddy simulation.Journal of Computational Physics, 423:109811, 2020

    2020

  91. [100]

    Slotnick, A

    J. Slotnick, A. Khodadoust, J. Alonso, D. Darmofal, W. Gropp, E. Lurie, and D. Mavriplis. CFD vision 2030 study: A path to revolutionary computational aerosciences. Technical report, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199, 2014. NASA Contractor Report 218178

  92. [101]

    Smagorinsky

    J. Smagorinsky. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: I. the basic experiement.Monthly Weather Review, 91:99–164, 1963

    1963

  93. [102]

    Solán-Fustero, A

    P. Solán-Fustero, A. Navas-Montilla, E. Ferrer, J. Manzanero, and P. García-Navarro. Application of approximate dispersion-diffusion analyses to under-resolved burgers turbulence using high resolution weno and uwc schemes. Journal of Computational Physics, 435:110246, 2021

    2021

  94. [103]

    Y. Sun, Z. Wang, and Y. Liu. High-order multidomain spectral difference method for the Navier-Stokes equations on unstructured hexahedral grids.Communications in Computational Physics, 2(2):310–333, 2007

    2007

  95. [104]

    Thornber, A

    B. Thornber, A. Mosedale, and D. Drikakis. On the implicit large eddy simulations of homogeneous decaying turbu- lence.Journal of Computational Physics, 226(2):1902–1929, 2007

    1902

  96. [105]

    Tonicello, G

    N. Tonicello, G. Lodato, and L. Vervisch. A comparative study from spectral analyses of high-order methods with non-constant advection velocities.Journal of Scientific Computing, 87:1–38, 2021

    2021

  97. [106]

    Tonicello, R

    N. Tonicello, R. C. Moura, G. Lodato, and G. Mengaldo. Fully-discrete spatial eigenanalysis of discontinuous spectral elementmethods: Insightsintowell-resolvedandunder-resolvedvorticalflows.Computers & Fluids, 266:106060, 2023

    2023

  98. [107]

    K. Um, R. Brand, Y. R. Fei, P. Holl, and N. Thuerey. Solver-in-the-loop: learning from differentiable physics to inter- act with iterative pde-solvers. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Red Hook, NY, USA, 202...

    2020

  99. [108]

    B. C. Vermeire and P. E. Vincent. On the properties of energy stable flux reconstruction schemes for implicit large eddy simulation.Journal of Computational Physics, 327:368–388, 2016. 34 OPTIMIZATION OF SGS MODELS FOR DSE SCHEMES BASED ON THE DISCRETE ADJOINT METHOD

    2016

  100. [109]

    Villanueva, K

    L. Villanueva, K. Truffin, and M. Meldi. Synchronization and optimization of Large Eddy simulation using an online ensemble Kalman filter.International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 110:109597, 2024

    2024

  101. [110]

    P. E. Vincent, P. Castonguay, and A. Jameson. Insights from von neumann analysis of high-order flux reconstruction schemes.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(22):8134–8154, 2011

    2011

  102. [111]

    A.Vreman.Aneddy-viscositysubgrid-scalemodelforturbulentshearflow: Algebraictheoryandapplications.Physics of fluids, 16(10):3670–3681, 2004

    2004

  103. [112]

    Vreman, B

    A. Vreman, B. Geurts, and J. Kuerten. A priori tests of Large-Eddy simulation of the compressible plane mixing layer.Journal of engineering mathematics, 29(4):299–327, 1995

    1995

  104. [113]

    X. Wang, O. A. Marino, and E. Ferrer. Accelerating high-order energy-stable discontinous Galerkin solver using auto-differentiation and neural networks, 2025

    2025

  105. [114]

    Y. Wang, Z. Yuan, and J. Wang. Ensemble data assimilation-based mixed subgrid-scale model for Large Eddy simulations.Physics of Fluids, 35(8):085107, 08 2023

    2023

  106. [115]

    Z. Wang, Y. Liu, G. May, and A. Jameson. Spectral difference method for unstructured grids II: Extension to the Euler equations.Journal of Scientific Computing, 32(1):45–71, 2007

    2007

  107. [116]

    Wei and J

    M. Wei and J. B. Freund. A noise-controlled free shear flow.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 546:123–152, 2006

    2006

  108. [117]

    A. R. Winters, R. C. Moura, G. Mengaldo, G. J. Gassner, S. Walch, J. Peiro, and S. J. Sherwin. A comparative study on polynomial dealiasing and split form discontinuous galerkin schemes for under-resolved turbulence computations. Journal of Computational Physics, 372:1–21, 2018

    2018

  109. [118]

    C. Xie, Z. Yuan, and J. Wang. Artificial neural network-based nonlinear algebraic models for large eddy simulation of turbulence.Physics of Fluids, 32(11):115101, 11 2020

    2020

  110. [119]

    Z. Yuan, Y. Wang, X. Wang, and J. Wang. Adjoint-based variational optimal mixed models for large-eddy simulation of turbulence.Physics of Fluids, 35(7):075105, 07 2023

    2023

  111. [120]

    Zhang, E

    H. Zhang, E. M. Constantinescu, and B. F. Smith. Petsc tsadjoint: A discrete adjoint ode solver for first-order and second-order sensitivity analysis.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 44(1):C1–C24, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.