Skip to content

Well-posedness of neural turbulence closures and tangent dissipation

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 15 references
Physics Computer Science

TL;DR

Two complementary ways to promote tangent dissipation are studied: an exact-integral construction enforcing non-negative tangent diffusion while leaving reaction unconstrained, and a penalty on tangent-reaction violations at sampled states that reduces the reported inverse sensitivity relative to the original operator.

Abstract

A neural turbulence closure defines a new boundary-value problem, $R(U)=N(U)+F(U)=0$, with a coupled Jacobian $J(U)=N'(U)+F'(U)$, where $N$ is the original mean-flow operator and $F$ the learned closure. We establish two consequences of global tangent dissipation. For a monotone original operator, a positive uniform margin supplied by the original operator and closure together guarantees existence, uniqueness and a global inverse-sensitivity bound relating a posteriori solution error to the a priori residual. For a general original operator, a dissipative closure cannot worsen tangent dissipation, but this alone does not guarantee uniqueness. Tangent dissipation depends on both diffusion and reaction. We study two complementary ways to promote it: (1) an exact-integral construction enforcing non-negative tangent diffusion while leaving reaction unconstrained, and (2) a penalty on tangent-reaction violations at sampled states. Tangent diffusion enters the Jacobian, and non-negative secant eddy viscosity alone does not control its coercivity. We conduct tests with channel flow at $Re_\tau=180$--$5200$, which provides a strongly monotone baseline. Both constrained closures reach accurate solutions in all 50 training-seed/Reynolds-number cases. At $Re_\tau=1000$, we conduct tests with 10,000 starts for one fixed network per closure and we find one root for each constrained closure and multiple roots for the other closures. Although this does not prove uniqueness, it provides strong empirical evidence for uniqueness of the tested constrained closures. At $Re_\tau=5200$, the construction and penalty reduce the reported inverse sensitivity relative to the original operator by approximately $372\times$ and $11\times$, respectively.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Conference Open access Jun 2018

Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents

This paper investigates developing real-world perception for active agents, proposes Gibson Environment for this purpose, and showcases a set of perceptual tasks learned therein.

F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He et al. · 1,069 citations · ⚡112
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.

Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...

Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al. · 302 citations · ⚡60

KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization

This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff et al. · 195 citations · ⚡28

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.