Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userB-PINNs: Bayesian Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Forward and Inverse PDE Problems with Noisy Data
152
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We propose a Bayesian physics-informed neural network (B-PINN) to solve both forward and inverse nonlinear problems described by partial differential equations (PDEs) and noisy data. In this Bayesian framework, the Bayesian neural network (BNN) combined with a PINN for PDEs serves as the prior while the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) or the variational inference (VI) could serve as an estimator of the posterior. B-PINNs make use of both physical laws and scattered noisy measurements to provide predictions and quantify the aleatoric uncertainty arising from the noisy data in the Bayesian framework. Compared with PINNs, in addition to uncertainty quantification, B-PINNs obtain more accurate predictions in scenarios with large noise due to their capability of avoiding overfitting. We conduct a systematic comparison between the two different approaches for the B-PINN posterior estimation (i.e., HMC or VI), along with dropout used for quantifying uncertainty in deep neural networks. Our experiments show that HMC is more suitable than VI for the B-PINNs posterior estimation, while dropout employed in PINNs can hardly provide accurate predictions with reasonable uncertainty. Finally, we replace the BNN in the prior with a truncated Karhunen-Lo`eve (KL) expansion combined with HMC or a deep normalizing flow (DNF) model as posterior estimators. The KL is as accurate as BNN and much faster but this framework cannot be easily extended to high-dimensional problems unlike the BNN based framework.
rate research
Read More
Multifidelity simulation methodologies are often used in an attempt to judiciously combine low-fidelity and high-fidelity simulation results in an accuracy-increasing, cost-saving way. Candidates for this approach are simulation methodologies for which there are fidelity differences connected with significant computational cost differences. Physics-informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are candidates for these types of approaches due to the significant difference in training times required when different fidelities (expressed in terms of architecture width and depth as well as optimization criteria) are employed. In this paper, we propose a particular multifidelity approach applied to PINNs that exploits low-rank structure. We demonstrate that width, depth, and optimization criteria can be used as parameters related to model fidelity, and show numerical justification of cost differences in training due to fidelity parameter choices. We test our multifidelity scheme on various canonical forward PDE models that have been presented in the emerging PINNs literature.
Despite the great promise of the physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) in solving forward and inverse problems, several technical challenges are present as roadblocks for more complex and realistic applications. First, most existing PINNs are based on point-wise formulation with fully-connected networks to learn continuous functions, which suffer from poor scalability and hard boundary enforcement. Second, the infinite search space over-complicates the non-convex optimization for network training. Third, although the convolutional neural network (CNN)-based discrete learning can significantly improve training efficiency, CNNs struggle to handle irregular geometries with unstructured meshes. To properly address these challenges, we present a novel discrete PINN framework based on graph convolutional network (GCN) and variational structure of PDE to solve forward and inverse partial differential equations (PDEs) in a unified manner. The use of a piecewise polynomial basis can reduce the dimension of search space and facilitate training and convergence. Without the need of tuning penalty parameters in classic PINNs, the proposed method can strictly impose boundary conditions and assimilate sparse data in both forward and inverse settings. The flexibility of GCNs is leveraged for irregular geometries with unstructured meshes. The effectiveness and merit of the proposed method are demonstrated over a variety of forward and inverse computational mechanics problems governed by both linear and nonlinear PDEs.
Despite the significant progress over the last 50 years in simulating flow problems using numerical discretization of the Navier-Stokes equations (NSE), we still cannot incorporate seamlessly noisy data into existing algorithms, mesh-generation is complex, and we cannot tackle high-dimensional problems governed by parametrized NSE. Moreover, solving inverse flow problems is often prohibitively expensive and requires complex and expensive formulations and new computer codes. Here, we review flow physics-informed learning, integrating seamlessly data and mathematical models, and implementing them using physics-informed neural networks (PINNs). We demonstrate the effectiveness of PINNs for inverse problems related to three-dimensional wake flows, supersonic flows, and biomedical flows.
Inverse design arises in a variety of areas in engineering such as acoustic, mechanics, thermal/electronic transport, electromagnetism, and optics. Topology optimization is a major form of inverse design, where we optimize a designed geometry to achieve targeted properties and the geometry is parameterized by a density function. This optimization is challenging, because it has a very high dimensionality and is usually constrained by partial differential equations (PDEs) and additional inequalities. Here, we propose a new deep learning method -- physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints (hPINNs) -- for solving topology optimization. hPINN leverages the recent development of PINNs for solving PDEs, and thus does not rely on any numerical PDE solver. However, all the constraints in PINNs are soft constraints, and hence we impose hard constraints by using the penalty method and the augmented Lagrangian method. We demonstrate the effectiveness of hPINN for a holography problem in optics and a fluid problem of Stokes flow. We achieve the same objective as conventional PDE-constrained optimization methods based on adjoint methods and numerical PDE solvers, but find that the design obtained from hPINN is often simpler and smoother for problems whose solution is not unique. Moreover, the implementation of inverse design with hPINN can be easier than that of conventional methods.
In this study, we employ physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) to solve forward and inverse problems via the Boltzmann-BGK formulation (PINN-BGK), enabling PINNs to model flows in both the continuum and rarefied regimes. In particular, the PINN-BGK is composed of three sub-networks, i.e., the first for approximating the equilibrium distribution function, the second for approximating the non-equilibrium distribution function, and the third one for encoding the Boltzmann-BGK equation as well as the corresponding boundary/initial conditions. By minimizing the residuals of the governing equations and the mismatch between the predicted and provided boundary/initial conditions, we can approximate the Boltzmann-BGK equation for both continuous and rarefied flows. For forward problems, the PINN-BGK is utilized to solve various benchmark flows given boundary/initial conditions, e.g., Kovasznay flow, Taylor-Green flow, cavity flow, and micro Couette flow for Knudsen number up to 5. For inverse problems, we focus on rarefied flows in which accurate boundary conditions are difficult to obtain. We employ the PINN-BGK to infer the flow field in the entire computational domain given a limited number of interior scattered measurements on the velocity with unknown boundary conditions. Results for the two-dimensional micro Couette and micro cavity flows with Knudsen numbers ranging from 0.1 to 10 indicate that the PINN-BGK can infer the velocity field in the entire domain with good accuracy. Finally, we also present some results on using transfer learning to accelerate the training process. Specifically, we can obtain a three-fold speedup compared to the standard training process (e.g., Adam plus L-BFGS-B) for the two-dimensional flow problems considered in our work.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
