One of the most promising applications of machine learning (ML) in computational physics is to accelerate the solution of partial differential equations (PDEs). The key objective of ML-based PDE solvers is to output a sufficiently accurate solution faster than standard numerical methods, which are used as a baseline comparison. We first perform a systematic review of the ML-for-PDE solving literature. Of articles that use ML to solve a fluid-related PDE and claim to outperform a standard numerical method, we determine that 79% (60/76) compare to a weak baseline. Second, we find evidence that reporting biases, especially outcome reporting bias and publication bias, are widespread. We conclude that ML-for-PDE solving research is overoptimistic: weak baselines lead to overly positive results, while reporting biases lead to underreporting of negative results. To a large extent, these issues appear to be caused by factors similar to those of past reproducibility crises: researcher degrees of freedom and a bias towards positive results. We call for bottom-up cultural changes to minimize biased reporting as well as top-down structural reforms intended to reduce perverse incentives for doing so.
Machine learned partial differential equation (PDE) solvers trade the reliability of standard numerical methods for potential gains in accuracy and/or speed. The only way for a solver to guarantee that it outputs the exact solution is to use a convergent method in the limit that the grid spacing $Δx$ and timestep $Δt$ approach zero. Machine learned solvers, which learn to update the solution at large $Δx$ and/or $Δt$, can never guarantee perfect accuracy. Some amount of error is inevitable, so the question becomes: how do we constrain machine learned solvers to give us the sorts of errors that we are willing to tolerate? In this paper, we design more reliable machine learned PDE solvers by preserving discrete analogues of the continuous invariants of the underlying PDE. Examples of such invariants include conservation of mass, conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and/or non-negative density. Our key insight is simple: to preserve invariants, at each timestep apply an error-correcting algorithm to the update rule. Though this strategy is different from how standard solvers preserve invariants, it is necessary to retain the flexibility that allows machine learned solvers to be accurate at large $Δx$ and/or $Δt$. This strategy can be applied to any autoregressive solver for any time-dependent PDE in arbitrary geometries with arbitrary boundary conditions. Although this strategy is very general, the specific error-correcting algorithms need to be tailored to the invariants of the underlying equations as well as to the solution representation and time-stepping scheme of the solver. The error-correcting algorithms we introduce have two key properties. First, by preserving the right invariants they guarantee numerical stability. Second, in closed or periodic systems they do so without degrading the accuracy of an already-accurate solver.
The purpose of this short and simple note is to clarify a common misconception about convolutional neural networks (CNNs). CNNs are made up of convolutional layers which are shift equivariant due to weight sharing. However, convolutional layers are not translation equivariant, even when boundary effects are ignored and when pooling and subsampling are absent. This is because shift equivariance is a discrete symmetry while translation equivariance is a continuous symmetry. This fact is well known among researchers in equivariant machine learning, but is usually overlooked among non-experts. To minimize confusion, we suggest using the term `shift equivariance' to refer to discrete shifts in pixels and `translation equivariance' to refer to continuous translations.
Many inverse problems in nuclear fusion and high-energy astrophysics research, such as the optimization of tokamak reactor geometries or the inference of black hole parameters from interferometric images, necessitate high-dimensional parameter scans and large ensembles of simulations to be performed. Such inverse problems typically involve large uncertainties, both in the measurement parameters being inverted and in the underlying physics models themselves. Monte Carlo sampling, when combined with modern non-linear dimensionality reduction techniques such as autoencoders and manifold learning, can be used to reduce the size of the parameter spaces considerably. However, there is no guarantee that the resulting combinations of parameters will be physically valid, or even mathematically consistent. In this position paper, we advocate adopting a hybrid approach that leverages our recent advances in the development of formal verification methods for numerical algorithms, with the goal of constructing parameter space restrictions with provable mathematical and physical correctness properties, whilst nevertheless respecting both experimental uncertainties and uncertainties in the underlying physical processes.
Abhilash Mathews, Noah Mandell, Manaure Francisquez et al.
A key uncertainty in the design and development of magnetic confinement fusion energy reactors is predicting edge plasma turbulence. An essential step in overcoming this uncertainty is the validation in accuracy of reduced turbulent transport models. Drift-reduced Braginskii two-fluid theory is one such set of reduced equations that has for decades simulated boundary plasmas in experiment, but significant questions exist regarding its predictive ability. To this end, using a novel physics-informed deep learning framework, we demonstrate the first ever direct quantitative comparisons of turbulent field fluctuations between electrostatic two-fluid theory and electromagnetic gyrokinetic modelling with good overall agreement found in magnetized helical plasmas at low normalized pressure. This framework is readily adaptable to experimental and astrophysical environments, and presents a new technique for the numerical validation and discovery of reduced global plasma turbulence models.