Understanding the training of PINNs for unsteady flow past a plunging foil through the lens of input subdomain level loss function gradients (2402.17346v1)
Abstract: Recently immersed boundary method-inspired physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) including the moving boundary-enabled PINNs (MB-PINNs) have shown the ability to accurately reconstruct velocity and recover pressure as a hidden variable for unsteady flow past moving bodies. Considering flow past a plunging foil, MB-PINNs were trained with global physics loss relaxation and also in conjunction with a physics-based undersampling method, obtaining good accuracy. The purpose of this study was to investigate which input spatial subdomain contributes to the training under the effect of physics loss relaxation and physics-based undersampling. In the context of MB-PINNs training, three spatial zones: the moving body, wake, and outer zones were defined. To quantify which spatial zone drives the training, two novel metrics are computed from the zonal loss component gradient statistics and the proportion of sample points in each zone. Results confirm that the learning indeed depends on the combined effect of the zonal loss component gradients and the proportion of points in each zone. Moreover, the dominant input zones are also the ones that have the strongest solution gradients in some sense.
- M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019.
- C. S. Peskin, “The immersed boundary method,” Acta numerica, vol. 11, pp. 479–517, 2002.
- M. Balajewicz and C. Farhat, “Reduction of nonlinear embedded boundary models for problems with evolving interfaces,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 274, pp. 489–504, 2014.
- R. Sundar, D. Majumdar, D. Lucor, and S. Sarkar, “Physics-informed neural networks modelling for systems with moving immersed boundaries: Application to an unsteady flow past a plunging foil,” 2024.
- D. Majumdar, C. Bose, and S. Sarkar, “Capturing the dynamical transitions in the flow-field of a flapping foil using immersed boundary method,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 95, p. 102999, 2020.
- S. Wang, Y. Teng, and P. Perdikaris, “Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. A3055–A3081, 2021.
- Z. Xiang, W. Peng, X. Liu, and W. Yao, “Self-adaptive loss balanced physics-informed neural networks,” Neurocomputing, vol. 496, pp. 11–34, 2022.
- S. J. Anagnostopoulos, J. D. Toscano, N. Stergiopulos, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Residual-based attention and connection to information bottleneck theory in pinns,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00379, 2023.
- G. C. Lewin and H. Haj-Hariri, “Modelling thrust generation of a two-dimensional heaving airfoil in a viscous flow,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 492, p. 339, 2003.
- M. S. U. Khalid, I. Akhtar, H. Dong, N. Ahsan, X. Jiang, and B. Wu, “Bifurcations and route to chaos for flow over an oscillating airfoil,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 80, pp. 262–274, 2018.
- D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “ADAM: A method for stochastic optimization,” 2014.
- A. B. Buhendwa, S. Adami, and N. A. Adams, “Inferring incompressible two-phase flow fields from the interface motion using physics-informed neural networks,” Machine Learning with Applications, vol. 4, p. 100029, 2021.
- D. Lucor, A. Agrawal, and A. Sergent, “Simple computational strategies for more effective physics-informed neural networks modeling of turbulent natural convection,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 456, p. 111022, 2022.