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.
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.· 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on...· 1,069 citations· ⚡112
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.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
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.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
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.· Neural Information Processin...· 302 citations· ⚡60
An algorithm is proposed which leverages disentangled semantic factors to generate adversarial perturbation by altering controlled semantic attributes to fool the learner towards various "adversarial" targets.
Haonan Qiu, Chaowei Xiao, Lei Yang et al.· arXiv.org· 208 citations· ⚡17
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.
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.