arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2312.14902physics.flu-dyn
收藏

基于机器学习方法的湍流闭合建模:一个视角

Turbulence closure modeling with machine learning approaches: A perspective

Sharath S. Girimaji

AI总结:

本文从视角角度审视机器学习在湍流闭合建模中的应用,识别基础物理挑战并评估ML能力,指出当前进展缓慢的原因,强调ML闭合模型的局限性,并倡导更审慎的使用框架。

摘要:

使用机器学习的湍流闭合建模正处于一个早期的十字路口。机器学习(ML)在众多具有挑战性的领域中的非凡成功,引发了对于在湍流闭合建模领域实现类似变革性进展的合理乐观情绪。然而,根据大多数评估,当前朝向准确且具有预测性的ML-RANS(雷诺平均纳维-斯托克斯)闭合模型的进展速度远低于最初的预期。进展速度低于预期的原因可归结为两点:一是初始期望过高,未能完全理解湍流现象的复杂性;二是使用ML技术的方式可能与湍流物理不一致。为了充分挖掘数据驱动方法在湍流建模中的潜力,本文旨在识别湍流闭合建模背后的基础物理挑战,并评估机器学习技术能否有效应对这些挑战。通过类比统计力学和随机系统,首先识别出使得湍流闭合建模复杂化的关键物理现象和数学限制。随后,探讨了ML在克服所识别的每一项挑战方面的固有能力。得出的结论强调了基于ML的闭合模型的局限性,并为在湍流建模中使用ML构建一个更为审慎的框架铺平了道路。随着ML方法的发展(这一进程正在快速进行)以及我们对湍流现象理解的加深,此处表达的推断应适时加以修正。

英文摘要:

Turbulence closure modeling using machine learning is at an early crossroads. The extraordinary success of machine learning (ML) in a variety of challenging fields has given rise to justifiable optimism regarding similar transformative advances in the area of turbulence closure modeling. However, by most accounts, the current rate of progress toward accurate and predictive ML-RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes) closure models has been much slower than initially projected. The slower-than-expected rate of progress can be attributed to two reasons: high initial expectations without a complete comprehension of the complexity of the turbulence phenomenon, and the use of ML techniques in a manner that may be inconsistent with turbulence physics. To do full justice to the potential of data-driven approaches in turbulence modeling, this article seeks to identify the foundational physics challenges underlying turbulence closure modeling and assess whether machine learning techniques can effectively tackle them. Drawing analogies with statistical mechanics and stochastic systems, the key physical phenomena and mathematical limitations that render turbulence closure modeling complicated are first identified. The inherent capability of ML to overcome each of the identified challenges is then investigated. The conclusions drawn highlight the limitations of ML-based closures and pave the way for a more judicious framework for the use of ML in turbulence modeling. As ML methods evolve (which is happening at a rapid pace) and our understanding of the turbulence phenomenon improves, the inferences expressed here should be suitably modified.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑