Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-13T15:26:43.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Routes towards an effective AI in CFD: an epistemological and technical perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2026

Michaël Bauerheim Open the ORCID record for Michaël Bauerheim [Opens in a new window]
Michaël Bauerheim*
Affiliation:
ISAE-SUPAERO, 10 Av. Marc Pélegrin, Toulouse, France
*
Corresponding author: Michaël Bauerheim, michael.bauerheim@isae-supaero.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into computational science (CS) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has raised profound epistemological debates concerning the nature of knowledge and its effectiveness in science. A central question in this discourse is whether AI can rival, or potentially surpass, the effectiveness of traditional mathematical methods in addressing the intricate challenges of CFD. In this work, I examine the concept of effectiveness within this context, highlighting the fundamental epistemological distinctions between AI-driven approaches and classical mathematical techniques. First, this analysis identifies four foundational pillars of effectiveness (PoEs) in scientific methods: (i) symmetries, which impose internal structure and coherence; (ii) scale separation, allowing specific treatments for the different scales and their interactions; (iii) sparsity, which simplifies complexity and enhances explicability; and (iv) semantic significance, which fosters abstraction, reasoning and interpretability. Yet, unlike mathematics where rigour ensures credibility by default, AI methods raise additional concerns of robustness and trust. Therefore, beyond the four PoEs, I also discuss credibility as a complementary pillar essential for the adoption of AI in the CFD community. The next critical step is to assess whether, and to what extent, AI can emulate or even outperform the roles and functions traditionally fulfilled by mathematical models. I therefore systematically review if, and how, these four pillar of effectiveness can be applied to AI-based algorithms. I show that those pillars are actually declined in a succession of technical advances that have shown promising results when using AI in CFD.

JFM classification

Mathematical Foundations: Computational methods Mathematical Foundations: Machine learning

Information

Type
JFM Perspectives
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 1031 , 25 March 2026 , P1
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aguilar, J.G., Dawson, J.R., Schuller, T., Durox, D., Prieur, K. & Candel, S. 2021 Locking of azimuthal modes by breaking the symmetry in annular combustors. Combust. Flame 234, 111639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajuria-Illaramendi, A., Bauerheim, M. & Cuenot, B. 2022 Performance and accuracy assessments of an incompressible fluid solver coupled with a deep convolutional neural network. Data-Centric Engng 3, e2.10.1017/dce.2022.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alguacil, A., Bauerheim, M., Jacob, M.C. & Moreau, S. 2022 Deep learning surrogate for the temporal propagation and scattering of acoustic waves. AIAA J. 60 (10), 5890–5906.10.2514/1.J061495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alguacil, A., Bauerheim, M., Moreau, S., Lavoie, P. & Bolduc-Teasdale, F. 2024 Data-driven acceleration and sensitivity study of an acoustic cascade response model. In AIAA Aviation Forum, p. 3389.Google Scholar
Alvarado, R. 2023 Ai as an epsitemic technology. Sci. Engng Ethics 29, 32.10.1007/s11948-023-00451-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P.W. 1972 More is different, broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science 177 (4047), 393–396.10.1126/science.177.4047.393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P.W. & Abrahams, E. 2009 Machines fall short of revolutionary science. Science 324, 1515–1516.10.1126/science.324_1515cCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azar, A.T., et al. 2021 Drone deep reinforcement learning: a review. Electronics 10 (9), 999.10.3390/electronics10090999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachelard, G. 1934 Le Nouvel Esprit Scientifique. Librairie Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. 1936 L’expérience de l’espace dans la physique contemporaine. PUF.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. 1938 La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Baddoo, P.J., Herrmann, B., McKeon, B.J., Kutz, N. & Brunton, S.L. 2023 Phyiscs-informed dynamic mode decomposition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 479, 20220576.Google Scholar
Bar-Sinai, Y., Hoyer, S., Hickey, J. & Brenner, M.P. 2019 Learning data-driven discretizations for partial differential equations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 (31), 15344–15349.10.1073/pnas.1814058116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbara, N.H., Wang, R. & Machester, I.R. 2024 On robust reinforcement learning with Lipschitz-bounded policy networks. arXiv 2405.11432v1.Google Scholar
Barbiero, P., Ciravegna, G., Giannini, G., Lio, P., Gori, M. & Melacci, S. 2022 Entropy-based logic explanations of neural networks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36.Google Scholar
Bassi, F. & Rebay, S. 1997 A high-order accurate discontinuous finite element method for the numerical solution of the compresible Navier–Stokes equations. J. Comput. Phys. 131 (2), 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauerheim, M., Cazalens, M. & Poinsot, T. 2014 a A theoretical study of mean azimuthal flow and asymmetry effects on thermo-acoustic modes in annular combustors. Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 (3), 3219–3227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauerheim, M., Ndiaye, A., Constantine, P., Moreau, S. & Nicoud, F. 2016 a Symmetry breaking of azimuthal thermoacoustic modes: the UQ perspective. J. Fluid Mech. 789, 534–566.10.1017/jfm.2015.730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauerheim, M., Nicoud, F. & Poinsot, T. 2016 b Progress in analytical methods to predict and control azimuthal combustion instability modes in annular chambers. Phys. Fluids 28 (2), 021303.10.1063/1.4940039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauerheim, M., Salas, P., Nicoud, F. & Poinsot, T. 2014 b Symmetry breaking of azimuthal thermoacoustic modes in annular cavities: a theoretical study. J. Fluid Mech. 760, 431–465.10.1017/jfm.2014.578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, A., Zeifang, J., Schwarz, A. & Flad, D.G. 2020 A neural network based shock detection and localization approach for discontinuous Galerkin methods. J. Comput. Phys. 423, 109824.10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, M.J. & Oliger, J. 1984 Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 53 (3), 484–512.10.1016/0021-9991(84)90073-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, S., Arroyo-Ramo, A., Guillet, V., Lahire, T., Martin, B., Jardin, T., Rachelson, E. & Bauerheim, M. 2024 Reliability assessment of off-policy deep reinforcement learning: a benchmark for aerodynamics. Data-Centric Engng 5, e2.10.1017/dce.2023.28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béthune, L., Boissin, T., Serrurier, M., Mamalet, F., Friedrich, C. & Gonzalez-Sanz, A. 2022 Pay attention to your loss: understanding misconceptions about 1-Lipschitz neural networks. In NeurIPS, vol. 36.10.52202/068431-1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobbia, B. & Picard, M. 2024 Active learning for regression based on wasserstein distance and groupsort neural networks. arXiv 2403.15108.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. 1958 Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Bommasani, R., et al. 2022 On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv 2108.07258.Google Scholar
Bozinovski, S. & Fulgosi, A. 1976 The influence of pattern similarity and transfer learning upon training of a base perceptron B2. Proc. Symp. Informatica 3 (121), 5.Google Scholar
Bronstein, M.M., Bruna, J., Cohen, T. & Velickovic, P. 2021 Geometric deep learning: grids, groups, graphs, geodesic and gauges. arXiv 2104.13478v2.Google Scholar
Brooks, T.F., Pope, D.S. & Marcolini, M. 1989 Airfoil self-noise and prediction. Tech. Rep. NASA.Google Scholar
Brown, T., et al. 2020 Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (ed. Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M., Hadsell, R., Balcan, M.F. & Lin, H.), vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Brunton, S.L., Proctor, J.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2016 a Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 (15), 3932–3937.10.1073/pnas.1517384113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunton, S.L., Proctor, J.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2016 b Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics with control (SINDYc). IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (18), 710–715.10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhendwa, A.B., Bezgin, D.A. & Adams, N.A. 2022 Consistent and symmetry preserving data-driven interface reconstruction for the level-set method. J. Comput. Phys. 457, 111049.10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, S., Mao, Z., Wang, Z., Yin, M. & Karniadakis, G.E. 2021 Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: a review. Acta Mechanica Sin. 37, 1727–1738.10.1007/s10409-021-01148-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campet, R., Roy, P.T., Cuenot, B., Riber, E. & Jouhaud, J.C. 2020 Design optimization of an heat exchanger using Gaussian process. Intl J. Heat Mass Transfer 150, 119264.10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.119264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, B. 1978 Similarity transformations for the two-dimensional, unsteady, stream-function equation. J. Fluid Mech. 85, 257–271.10.1017/S0022112078000634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catalani, G., Agarwal, S., Bertrand, X., Tost, F., Bauerheim, M. & Morlier, J. 2024 Neural fields for rapid aircraft aerodynamics simulations. Sci. Rep. 14 (1), 25496.10.1038/s41598-024-76983-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catalani, G., Costero, D., Bauerheim, M., Zampieri, L., Chapin, V., Gourdain, N. & Baqué, P. 2023 A comparative study of learning techniques for the compressible aerodynamics over a transonic RAE2822 airfoil. Comput. Fluids 251, 105759.10.1016/j.compfluid.2022.105759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R.T., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J. & Duvenaud, D. 2018 Neural ordinary differential equations. In NIPS, vol. 32.Google Scholar
Cheng, L., Illarramendi, E.A., Bogopolsky, G., Bauerheim, M. & Cuenot, B. 2021 Using neural networks to solve the 2D Poisson equation for electric field computation in plasma fluid simulations. arXiv 2109.13076v3.Google Scholar
Cheng, S., Morel, R., Allys, E., Ménard, B. & Mallat, S. 2024 Scattering spectra models for physics. PNAS 3 (4), 103.10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chnafa, C., Mendez, S., Moreno, R. & Nicoud, F. 2015 Using image-based CFD to investigate the intracardiac turbulence. In Modeling the Heart and the Circulatory Systems, pp. 97–117.Google Scholar
Coiffier, G. & Béthune, L. 2024 1-Lipschitz neural distance fields. Comput. Graph. Forum 43 (5), e15128.10.1111/cgf.15128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colin, O., Ducros, F., Veynante, D. & Poinsot, T. 2000 A thickened flame model for large eddy simulations of turbulent premixed combustion. Phys. Fluids 12 (7), 1843–1863.10.1063/1.870436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, M., Morlier, J. & Bauerheim, M. 2023 Prediction of gust aeroelastic performance of hale using graph neural networks. In AIAA Scitech 2023 Forum, p. 2570.Google Scholar
Constantine, P.G., Dow, E. & Wang, Q. 2014 Active subspace methods in theory and pratice: applications to Kriging surfaces. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 36 (4), 1500–1524.10.1137/130916138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coratger, T., Farag, G., Zhao, S., Boivin, P. & Sagaut, P. 2021 Large-eddy lattice-Boltzmann modeling of transonic flows. Phys. Fluids 33 (11), 115112.10.1063/5.0064944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corban, B., Bauerheim, M. & Jardin, T. 2023 Discovering optimal flapping wing kinematics using active learning. J. Fluid Mech. 974, A54.10.1017/jfm.2023.832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corry, L. 1996 Modern Algebra and the Rise of Mathematical Structures. Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Cranmer, M., Greydanus, S., Hoyer, S., Battaglia, P., Spergel, D. & Ho, S. 2020 a Lagrangian neural networks. arXiv 2003.04630.Google Scholar
Cranmer, M., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Battaglia, P., Xu, R., Cranmer, K., Spergel, D. & Ho, S. 2020 b Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. In NeurIPS, vol. 34.Google Scholar
Curie, P. 1984 Sur la symétrie dans les phénomènes physiques, symétrie d’un champ électrique et d’un champ magnétique. J. Phys. Théor. Appl. 3 (1), 393–415.Google Scholar
D’Aniello, R., Gövert, S., Knobloch, K. & Kissner, C. 2023 A general acoustic framework for the assessment of noise emitted by combustors: a first case study. J. Sound Vib. 562, 117846.10.1016/j.jsv.2023.117846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doan, N.A.K., Polifke, W. & Magri, L. 2020 Physics-informed echo state networks. arXiv 2011.02280.10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominique, J., Christophe, J., Schram, C. & Sandberg, R.D. 2021 Inferring empirical wall pressure spectral models with gene expression programming. J. Sound Vib. 506, 116162.10.1016/j.jsv.2021.116162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doshi-Velez, F. & Kim, B. 2017 Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv 1702.08608v2.Google Scholar
Drozda, L., Mohanamuraly, P., Cheng, L., Lapeyre, C., Daviller, G., Realpe, Y., Adler, A., Staffelbach, G. & Poinsot, T. 2023 Learning an optimised stable Taylor–Galerkin convection scheme based on a local spectral model for the numerical error dynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 493, 112430.10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drygala, C., Winhart, B., di Mare, F. & Gottschalk, H. 2022 Generative modeling of turbulence. Phys. Fluids 34 (3), 035114.10.1063/5.0082562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, W. 2023 The challenge of artificial intelligence scientists to the epistemology of science. J. Library Inform. Sci. Agric. 35 (11), 4–12.Google Scholar
Dubrulle, B. & Frisch, U. 1991 Eddy viscosity of parity-invariant flow. Phys. Rev. A 43, 5355.10.1103/PhysRevA.43.5355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durasov, N., Oner, D., Donier, J., Le, H. & Fua, P. 2024 Enabling uncertainty estimation in iterative neural networks. In ICML , vol. 41.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. 1920 Relativity: the Special and General Theory. Methuen & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Fakhar, K., Hayat, T., Yi, C. & Zhao, K. 2009 Symmetry transformation of solutions for the Navier–Stokes equations. Appl. Maths Comput. 207 (1), 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanaskov, V. 2024 Neural multigrid architectures. arXiv 2402.05563v1.Google Scholar
Farahani, A., Voghoei, S., Rasheed, K. & Arabnia, H.R. 2020 A brief review of domain adaptation. arXiv 2010.03978v1.Google Scholar
Faure-Beaulieu, A., Indlekofer, T., Dawson, J.R. & Noiray, N. 2021 Imperfect symmetry of real annular combustors: beating thermoacoustic modes and heteroclinic orbits. J. Fluid Mech. 2021 (649), R1.10.1017/jfm.2021.649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure-Beaulieu, A. & Noiray, N. 2022 Symmetry breaking of azimuthal waves: slow-flow dynamics on the Bloch sphere. Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 023201.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.5.023201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, H., Zheng, H., Hu, P., Liu, H., Yu, C., Wei, L., Feng, R., Duan, J., Fan, D. & Wu, T. 2025 Fluidzero: mastering diverse tasks in fluid systems through a single generative model. arXiv (under review).10.21203/rs.3.rs-6881567/v1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, C. 2001 Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving problems. Complex Syst. 13 (2), 87–129.Google Scholar
Florack, L., Romeny, B.M.T.H., Koenderink, J.J. & Viergever, M.A. 1992 Scale and the differential structure of images. Image Vis. Comput. 10 (6), 376–388.10.1016/0262-8856(92)90024-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florack, L.M.J., Romeny, B.M.T.H., Koenderink, J.J. & Viergever, M.A. 1994 General intensity transformations and differential invariants. J. Math. Imag. Vis. 4, 171–187.10.1007/BF01249895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foglia, E., Bobbia, B., Durasov, N., Bauerheim, M., Fua, P., Moreau, S. & Jardin, T. 2025 Do you understand epistemic uncertainty? think again! rigorous frequentist epistemic uncertainty estimation in regression. arXiv 2503.13317v1.Google Scholar
Gal, Y. & Ghahramani, Z. 2016 Dropout as a bayesian approximation: representing modeul uncertainty in deep learning. In ICML, pp. 1050–1059.Google Scholar
Ganascia, J.-G. 2010 Epistemology of AI revisited in the light of the philosophy of information. Knowledge Technol. Policy 23, 57–73.10.1007/s12130-010-9101-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnelo, M. & Shanahan, M. 2019 Reconciling deep learning with symbolic artificial intelligence: representing objects and relations. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 29, 17–23.10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnier, P., Viquerat, J., Rabault, J., Larcher, A., Kuhnle, A. & Hachem, E. 2021 A review on deep reinforcement learning for fluid mechanics. Comput. Fluids 225, 104973.10.1016/j.compfluid.2021.104973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gens, R. & Domingos, P.M. 2014 Deep symmetry networks. In NIPS, vo. 27.Google Scholar
Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P. & Cabot, W. 1991 A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model. Phys. Fluids 3 (7), 1760–1765.10.1063/1.857955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gode, H., Kruse, C., Angersbach, R., Köstler, H., Bauerheim, M. & Rüde, U. 2024 Comparison of multigrid and machine learning-based poisson solvers. In HAL, p. 04689025.Google Scholar
Golubitsky, M. & Stewart, I. 1986 Symmetry and stability in Taylor–Couette flow. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 17 (2), 249–288.10.1137/0517023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A. & Bengio, Y. 2014 Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google Scholar
Grattarola, D. & Vandergheynst, P. 2022 Generalised implicit neural representations. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36.Google Scholar
Graves, A., Mohamed, A.-R. & Hinton, G. 2013 Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6638947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grebenev, V.N. & Oberlack, M. 2007 Approximate Lie symmetries of the Navier–Stokes equations. J. Nonlinear Math. Phys. 14 (2), 157–163.10.2991/jnmp.2007.14.2.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greydanus, S., Dzamba, M. & Yosinski, J. 2019 Hamiltonian neural networks. In NIPS, vol. 33.Google Scholar
Grizzi, S. & Camussi, R. 2012 Wavelet analysis of near-field pressure fluctuations generated by a subsonic jet. J. Fluid Mech. 698, 93–124.10.1017/jfm.2012.64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, Q., Badias, A., Chinesta, F. & Cueto, E. 2023 Thermodynamics-informed neural networks for physically realistic mixed reality. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng 407, 115912.10.1016/j.cma.2023.115912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, L. & Kollmannsberger, S. 2024 Deep learning in computational mechanics: a review. Comput. Mech. 74, 281–331.10.1007/s00466-023-02434-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, J., Jain, A. & Abbeel, P. 2020 Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (ed. Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M., Hadsell, R., Balcan, M.F. & Lin, H.), vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851. Curran Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Hussain, M.S., Zaki, M.J. & Subramanian, D. 2022 Global self-attention as a replacement for graph convolution. In ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, vol. 28.Google Scholar
Illarramendi, E.A., Alguacil, A., Bauerheim, M., Cuenot, B. & Benazerra, B. 2020 a Towards an hybrid computational strategy based on deep learning for incompressible flows. In AIAA Aviation Forum, p. 3058.Google Scholar
Illarramendi, E.A., Bauerheim, M. & Cuenot, B. 2020 b Analysis of downscaled branches and receptive field on a cnn-based incompressible solver. In APS Division Fluid Dynamics Meeting, p. p20035.Google Scholar
Jakubik, J., et al. 2023 Foundation models for generalist geospatial artificial intelligence. arXiv 2310.18660v2.Google Scholar
Jebeile, J. 2024 From regional climate models to usable information. Climatic Change 177, 53.10.1007/s10584-024-03693-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, B., Wu, T., Sonnewald, M., Thackray, C. & Callis, S. 2024 A moonshot for AI oracles in the sciences. arXiv 2406.17836.Google Scholar
Kautz, H.A. 2022 The third AI summer: AAAI Robert S. Engelmore memorial lecture. AI Mag. 43, 105–125.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Lu, P.Y., Mukherjee, S., Gilbert, M., Jing, L., Ceperic, V. & Soljacic, M. 2021 Integration of neural network-based symbolic regression in deep learning for scientific discovery. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. 32 (9), 4166.10.1109/TNNLS.2020.3017010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koestler, L., Grittner, D., Moeller, M., Cremers, D. & Lähner, Z. 2022 Intrinsic neural fields: learning functions on manifolds. Comput. Vis. – ECCV 17, 622–639.Google Scholar
Koumoutsakos, P. 2024 On roads less travelled between AI and computational science. Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 342–344.10.1038/s42254-024-00726-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krenn, M., et al. 2022 On scientific understanding with artificial intelligence. Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 761–769.10.1038/s42254-022-00518-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A. & Blundell, C. 2017 Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty esimation using deep ensembles. In Advanced in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google Scholar
Lam, R., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Willson, M., Wirnsberger, P., Fortunato, M., alet, F., Ravuri, S., Ewalds, T., Eaton-Rosen, Z. & Battaglia, P. 2023 Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting. Science 382 (6677), 1416–1421.10.1126/science.adi2336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, D. 1997 L’efficacité des mathématiques est-elle déraisonnable. Bull. Acad. R. Belgique 8-1-6, 161–178.Google Scholar
Larochelle, H., Erhan, D., Courville, A.C., Bergstra, J. & Bengio, Y. 2007 An empirical evaluation of deep architectures on problems with many factors of variation. In ICML, pp. 473–480.Google Scholar
Lav, C., Banko, A.J., Waschkowski, F., Zhao, Y., Elkins, C.J., Eaton, J.K. & Sandberg, R.D. 2023 A coupled framework for symbolic turbulence models from deep-learning. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 101, 109140.10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2023.109140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, W.-M. & Li, H.-B. 2025 U-WNO: U-Net enhanced wavelet neural operator for solving parametric partial differential equations. Comput. Maths Applics 194, 272–287.10.1016/j.camwa.2025.06.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, P., Jeffrey, N., Cranmer, M., Ho, S. & Battaglia, P. 2023 Rediscovering orbital mechanics with machine learning. Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 4, 045002.Google Scholar
Levins, R. 1966 The strategy of model building in population biology. Am. Sci. 54 (4), 421–431.Google Scholar
Li, Q., Han, Z. & Wu, X. 2018 Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 32, 3538–3545.Google Scholar
Li, T., Buzzicotti, M., Biferale, L. & Bonaccorso, F. 2023 Generative adversarial networks to infer velocity components in rotating turbulent flows. Eur. Phys. J. E 46, 31.10.1140/epje/s10189-023-00286-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Z., Kovachki, N., Azizzadenesheli, K., Liu, B., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A. & Anandkumar, A. 2021 Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. In Proceedings of ICLR.Google Scholar
Lindeberg, T. 2013 Invariance of visual operations at the level of receptive fields. PLoS ONE 8 (7), e66990.10.1371/journal.pone.0066990CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lino, M., Fotiadis, S., Bharath, A.A. & Cantwell, C.D. 2023 Current and emerging deep-learning methods for the simulation of fluid dynamics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 479, 2275.Google Scholar
Lipton, Z.C. 2016 The mythos of model interpretability. In ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning.Google Scholar
Liu, D. & Wang, Y. 2019 Multi-fidelity physics-constrained neural network and its application in materials modeling. In Proceedings of the ASME 2019 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 2A. V02AT03A007.Google Scholar
Liu, H.-T.D., Williams, F., Jacobson, A., Fidler, S. & Litany, O. 2022 a Learning smooth neural functions via Lipschitz regularization. In SIGGRAPH.10.1145/3528233.3530713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X., Yoo, C., Xing, F., Oh, H., Fakhri, G.El, Kang, J.-W. & Woo, J. 2022 b Deep unsupervised domain adaptation: a review of recent advanced and perspectives. APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Informaiton Processings, vol. 1, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Sun, J., He, X., Pinney, G., Zhang, Z. & Schaeffer, H. 2024 PROSE-FD: a multimodal PDE foundation model for learning multiple operators for forecasting fluid dynamics. arXiv 2409.09811v1.Google Scholar
Lodato, G. 2019 Characteristic modal shock detection for discontinuous finite element methods. Comput. Fluids 179, 309–333.10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, L., Jin, P. & Karniadakis, G.E. 2019 Deeponet: learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. arXiv 1910.03193.Google Scholar
Lu, L., Meng, X., Mao, Z. & Karniadakis, G.E. 2021 DeepXDE: a deep learning library for solving differential equations. SIAM Rev. 63 (1), 208–228.10.1137/19M1274067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luigi, L.De, Cardace, A., Spezialetti, R., Ramirez, P.Z., Salti, S. & Stefano, L.Di 2023 Deep learning on implicit neural representations of shapes. In ICLR.Google Scholar
Lusch, B., Kutz, J.N. & Brunton, L. 2018 Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics. Nat. Commun. 9, 4950.10.1038/s41467-018-07210-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lütjens, B., Crawford, C.H., Watson, C., Hill, C. & Newman, D. 2022 Multiscale neural operator: learning fast and grid-independent PDE solvers. In AI4Science Workshop from ICML, vol. 39.Google Scholar
Lyu, Y., Zhao, X., Gong, Z., Kang, X. & Yao, W. 2023 Multi-fidelity prediction of fluid flow based on transfer learning using Fourier neural operator. Phys. Fluids 35 (7), 077118.10.1063/5.0155555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, D.J. 1995 Bayesian neural networks and density networks. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors Associated Equipment 354 (1), 73–80.10.1016/0168-9002(94)00931-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madani, A., et al. 2023 Large language models generate functional protein sequences across diverse families. Nat. Biotechnol. 41, 1099–1106.10.1038/s41587-022-01618-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magri, L., See, Y.-C., Tammisola, O., Ihme, M. & Juniper, M. 2016 Multiple-scale thermoacoustic stability analysis of a coaxial jet combustor. In Proceedings of the Combustion Institute (06.009).Google Scholar
Mallat, S. 2009 A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing. The sparse way.Google Scholar
Marié, S., Ricot, D. & Sagaut, P. 2009 Comparison between lattice Boltzmann method and Navier–Stokes high order schemes for computational aeroacoustics. J. Comput. Phys. 228 (4), 1056–1070.10.1016/j.jcp.2008.10.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markelle, K., Longjohn, R. & Nottingham, K. 2014 The UCI machine learning repository.Google Scholar
Maronne, S. & Patras, F. 2022 L’épistémologie mathématique de Gaston Bachelard. Bachelard Stud. 1–2, 51–68.Google Scholar
Mathieu, M., Couprie, C. & LeCun, Y. 2016 Deep multi-scale video prediction beyond mean square error. In ICLR.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D. & Nakai, T. 2023 Syntactic theory of mathematical expressions. Cognitive Psychol. 146, 101606.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101606CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, J.C. 1861 On physical lines of force. Phil. Mag. J. Sci. 21, 488.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. 1981 Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. In Readings in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 459–465.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M.L., Rochester, N. & Shannon, C.E. 1956 A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence. Availavle at: https://raysolomonoff.com/dartmouth/20boxa/dart564props.pdf.Google Scholar
McCulloch, W.S. & Pitts, W. 1943 A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull. Math. Biophys. 5, 115–133.10.1007/BF02478259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meneveau, C. & Lund, T. 1997 The dynamic Smagorinsky model and scale-dependent coefficients in the viscous range of turbulence. Phys. Fluids 9 (12), 3932–3934.10.1063/1.869493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meneveau, C. & Sreenivasan, K.R. 1987 The multifractal spectrum of the dissipation field in turbulent flows. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 2, 49.10.1016/0920-5632(87)90008-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, K. & Mittal, R. 2021 Significance of the strain-dominated region around a vortex on induced aerodynamic loads. J. Fluid Mech. 918, R3.10.1017/jfm.2021.359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, T., Cvjetko, M., Hamon, G., Oudeyer, P.-Y. & Moulin-Frier, C. 2025 Exploring flow-lenia universes with a curiosity-driven AI scientist: discovering diverse ecosystem dynamics. arXiv 2505.15998v2.10.1162/ISAL.a.896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minisci, E. & Vasile, M. 2013 Robust design of a reentry unmanned space vehicle by multifidelity evolution control. AIAA J. 51 (6), 1284–1295.10.2514/1.J051573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M. 1996 An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. Cambridge MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3927.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, P., Fenz, W., Thumfart, S., Ganitzer, I. & Giretzlehner, M. 2023 Modeling of 3D blood flows with physics-informed neural networks: comparison of network architectures. Fluids 8 (2), 46.10.3390/fluids8020046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, B. 2020 Hydrodynamics of core-collapse supernovae and their progenitors. Living Rev. Comput. Astrophys. 6, 3.10.1007/s41115-020-0008-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, T., Evans, A., Schied, C. & Keller, A. 2022 Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM Trans. Graph. 41 (4), 1–15.10.1145/3528223.3530127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabian, M.A. 2014 X-meshgraphnet: scalable multi-scale graph neural networks for physics simulation. arXiv 2411.17164v1.Google Scholar
Nabian, M.A. & Meidani, H. 2020 Physics-driven regularization of deep neural networks for enhanced engineering design and analysis. J. Comput. Inform. Sci. Engng 20 (1), 011006.10.1115/1.4044507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najar, M.Al, Almar, R., Bergsma, E.W.J., Delvit, J.-M. & Wilson, D.G. 2023 Improving a shoreline forecasting model with symbolic regression. In Tackling Climate change with Machine Learning, ICLR, p. hal–04281530.Google Scholar
Nicoud, F. 2004 High-order conservative schemes for low Mach number flows. In Tenth SIAM International Conference on Numerical Combustion.Google Scholar
Nicoud, F., Baggett, J., Moin, P. & Cabot, W. 2001 LES wall-modeling based on optimal control theory. Phys. Fluids 13 (10), 1629–1632.Google Scholar
Nicoud, F. & Ducros, F. 1999 Subgrid-scale stress modelling based on the square of the velocity gradient. Flow Turbul. Combust. 62 (3), 183–200.10.1023/A:1009995426001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noether, E. 1918 Invariante variationsprobleme. In Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Go¨ttingen. Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, pp. 235–257.Google Scholar
O’Connor, J., Day, P., Mandal, P. & Revell, A. 2016 Computational fluid dynamics in the microcirculation and microfluidics: what role can the lattice Boltzmann method play? Integr. Biol. 8 (5), 589–602.10.1039/c6ib00009fCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohana, R., et al. 2024 The well: a large-scale collection of diverse physics simulations for machine learning. In NeurIPS, vol. 38.Google Scholar
Önder, A. & Liu, P.L.-F. 2023 Deep learning of interfacial curvature: a symmetry-preserving approach for the volume of fluid method. J. Comput. Phys. 485, 112110.10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, S.E., Zolman, N., Kutz, J.N. & Brunton, S.L. 2023 A unifified framework to enforce, discover and promote symmetry in machine learning. arXiv 2311.00212.Google Scholar
Ovenden, N.C. 2005 A uniformly valid multiple scales solution for cut-on cut-off transition of sound in flow ducts. J. Sound Vibr. 286 (1–2), 403–416.10.1016/j.jsv.2004.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, S.J. & Yang, Q. 2010 A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Engng 22 (10), 1345–1359.10.1109/TKDE.2009.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, R.E. & Eggleston, R.G. 2017 Intuitive cognition. J. Cognitive Engng Decision Making 11 (1), 5–22.10.1177/1555343416686476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peherstorfer, B., Willcox, K. & Gunzburger, M. 2018 Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. SIAM Rev. 60 (3), 550–591.10.1137/16M1082469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, R. 1990 The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinto, W.G., Alguacil, A. & Bauerheim, M. 2022 On the reproducibility of fully convolutional neural networks for modeling time–space-evolving physical systems. Data-Centric Engng 3, e19.10.1017/dce.2022.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R. 1962 Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.Google Scholar
Pratt, W.K. 1972 Generalized wiener filtering computation techniques. IEEE Trans. Comput. 100 (7), 636–641.10.1109/T-C.1972.223567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiu, J., Huang, J., Zhang, X., Lin, Z., Pan, M., Liu, Z. & Miao, F. 2024 Pi-fusion: physics-informed diffusion model for learning fluid dynamics. arXiv2024 2406.03711v1.Google Scholar
Quedeville, V. 2020 Mathematical analysis, modelling and simulation of microbial population dynamics. PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
Rabault, J., Kuchta, M., Jensen, A., Réglade, U. & Cerardi, N. 2019 Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control. J. Fluid Mech. 865, 281–302.10.1017/jfm.2019.62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G.E. 2019 Physics-informed neural networks: a deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686–707.10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razafindralandy, D., Hamdouni, A. & Oberlack, M. 2007 New turbulence models preserving symmetries. In 5th International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomen.10.1615/TSFP5.480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reissmann, M., Hasslberger, J., Sandberg, R.D. & Klein, M. 2021 Application of gene expression programming to a-posteriori LES modeling of a Taylor Green vortex. J. Comput. Phys. 424, 109859.10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robic, S. & Jungck, J.R. 2011 Unraveling the tangled complexity of DNA: combining mathematical modeling and experimental biology to understand replication, recombination and repair. Math. Model. Natural Phenom. 6 (6), 108–135.10.1051/mmnp/20116607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. 2015 U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2015, pp. 234–241.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, F. 1958 The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol. Rev. 65 (6), 386–408.10.1037/h0042519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, P.T., Segui, L.M., Jouhaud, J.C. & Gicquel, L. 2018 Resampling strategies to improve surrogate model-based uncertainty quantification: application to LES of LS89. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 87 (12), 607–627.10.1002/fld.4504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudy, S.H., Brunton, S.L., Proctor, J.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2017 Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602614.10.1126/sciadv.1602614CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusch, T.K., Bronstein, M.M. & Mishra, S. 2023 A survey on oversmoothing in graph neural networks. arXiv 2303.10993v1.Google Scholar
Russakovsky, O., et al. 2015 Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. Intl J. Comput. Vis. 115, 211–252.10.1007/s11263-015-0816-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rywik, M., Zimmermann, A., Eder, A.J., Scoletta, E. & Polifke, W. 2023 Spatially resolved modeling of the nonlinear dynamics of a laminar premixed flame with a multilayer perceptron - convolution autoencoder network. In Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo, p. 102543.Google Scholar
Sa, A.A.R.D., Carvalho, J.D. & Naves, E.L.M. 2023 Reflections on epistemological aspects of artificial intelligence during the COVID-19 pandemic. AI Soc. 38, 1601–1608.Google Scholar
Saetta, E., Tognaccini, R. & Iaccarino, G. 2024 Uncertainty quantification in autoencoders predictions: applications in aerodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 506, 112951.10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayed, N.A., Hamdouni, A., Liberge, E. & Razafindralandy, D. 2010 The symmetry group of the non-isothermal Navier–Stokes equations and turbulence modelling. Symmetry 2 (2), 848–867.10.3390/sym2020848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, P.J. 2010 Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 5–28.10.1017/S0022112010001217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitzler, M., Tavakoli, A., Antic, D. & Martius, G. 2022 On the pitfalls of heteroscedastic uncertainty estimation with probabilistic neural networks. In ICLR.Google Scholar
Serrano, L., Wang, T.X., Naour, E.Le, Vittaut, J.-N. & Gallinari, P. 2024 Aroma: preserving spatial structure for latent PDE modeling with local neural fields. In NeurIPS, vol. 38.Google Scholar
Serrurier, M., Mamalet, F., Gonzalez-Sanz, A., Boissin, T., Loubes, J.-M. & Barrio, E.D. 2021 Achieving robustness in classification using optimal transport with hinge regularization. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 505–514.Google Scholar
Shu, D., Li, Z. & Farimani, A.B. 2023 A physics-informed diffusion model for high-fidelity flow field reconstruction. J. Comput. Phys. 478, 111972.10.1016/j.jcp.2023.111972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddani, B., Balachandar, S. & Fang, R. 2021 Rotational and reflectional equivariant convolutional neural network for data-limited applications: multiphase flow demonstration. Phys. Fluids 33, 103323.10.1063/5.0066049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sierra-Ausin, J., Fabre, D. & Knobloch, E. 2024 Wake dynamics in buoyancy-driven flows: steady-state-Hopf-mode interaction with O(2) symmetry revisited. Phys. Rev. E 109 (1), 014216.10.1103/PhysRevE.109.014216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, B.M.D., Higdon, D.M., Brunton, S.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2020 Discovery of physics from data: universal laws and discrepancies. Frontiers Artif. Intell. 3, 25.10.3389/frai.2020.00025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, H.A. 1962 The architecture of complexity. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 106 (6), 467–482.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1969 The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simondon, G. 1970 Naissance de la technologie. Sur la Technique.Google Scholar
Sitzmann, V., Martel, J.N.P., Bergman, A.W., Lindell, D.B. & Wetzstein, G. 2020 Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, J. 1963 General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: 1. The basic experiment. Mon. Weath. Rev. 91, 99–164.10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;22.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J., Meng, C. & Ermon, S. 2020 Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv 2010.02502.Google Scholar
Subramanian, S., Harrington, P., Keutzer, K., Bhimji, W., Morozov, D., Mahoney, M.W. & Gholami, A. 2023 Towards foundation models for scientific machine learning: characterizing scaling and transfer behavior. In NeurIPS, vol. 37.Google Scholar
Tancik, M., Srinivasan, P.P., Mildenhall, B., Fridovich-Keil, S., Raghavan, N., Singhal, U., Ramamoorthi, R., Barron, J.T. & Ng, R. 2020 Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34.Google Scholar
Tartaglione, E., Lathuilière, S., Fiandrotti, A., Cagnazzo, M. & Grangetto, M. 2021 HEMP: high-order entropy minimization for neural network compression. Neurocomputing 461, 244–253.10.1016/j.neucom.2021.07.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tekkesin, A.I. 2019 Artificial intelligence in healthcase: past, present and future. Anatolian J. Cardiology 22 (2), 8–9.Google Scholar
Tenachi, W., Ibata, R. & Diakogiannis, F.I. 2023 Deep symbolic regression for physics guided by units constraints: toward the automated discovery of physical laws. Astrophys. J. 959 (2), 99.10.3847/1538-4357/ad014cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, A.S., Bryson, D.E., Stanford, B.K. & Beran, P.S. 2022 Multi-fidelity gradient-based optimization for high-dimensional aeroelastic configurations. Algorithms 15 (4), 131.10.3390/a15040131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thom, R., Tsatsanis, S.P. & Lisker, R. 2016 To Predict IS NOT To Explain: Conversations On Mathematics, Science, Catastrophe Theory, Semiophysics, Morphogenesis and Natural Philosophy. Thombooks Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Tierz, A., Iparraguirre, M.M., Alfaro, I., Gonzalez, D., Chinesta, F. & Cueto, E. 2024 On the feasibility of foundational models for the simulation of physical phenomena. arXiv 2410.14645v1.Google Scholar
Tompson, J., Schlachter, K., Sprechmann, P. & Perlin, K. 2017 Accelerating Eulerian fluid simulation with convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 34th ICML.Google Scholar
Touboul, P. 2022 Microscope mission: final results of the test of the equivalence principle. Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 121102.10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.121102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Touvron, H., et al. 2023 LLaMA: open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv 2302.13971v1.Google Scholar
Trask, N., Huang, A. & Hu, X. 2022 Enforcing exact physics in scientific machine learning: a data-driven exterior calculus on graphs. J. Comput. Phys. 456, 110969.10.1016/j.jcp.2022.110969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripura, T. & Chakraborty, S. 2023 Wavelet neural operator for solving parametric partial differential equations in computational mechanics problems. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng 404, 115783.10.1016/j.cma.2022.115783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Um, K., Brand, R., Fei, Y., Holl, P. & Thuerey, N. 2020 Solver-in-the-loop: learning from differentiable physics to interact with iterative PDE-solvers. In NeurIPS, vol. 34.Google Scholar
Usandivaras, J.F.Z., Bauerheim, M., Cuenot, B. & Urbano, A. 2024 a Data-driven multi-fidelity surrogate models for rocket engines injector design. Data-Centric Engng (under review).Google Scholar
Usandivaras, J.F.Z., Bauerheim, M., Cuenot, B. & Urbano, A. 2024 b Deep convolutional autoencoders for the time–space reconstruction of liquid rocket engine flames. Proc. Combust. Inst. 40 (1–4), 105382.10.1016/j.proci.2024.105382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandamme, F. 1976 L’épistémologie et la sémantique. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 117 (118), 435–449.Google Scholar
Vaswany, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N. & Kaiser, L. 2017 Attention is all you need. In NIPS, vol. 31.Google Scholar
Velthoven, M. & Marcus, E. 2024 Problems in AI, their roots in philosophy, and implications for science and society. arXiv 2407.15671.Google Scholar
Verma, S., Novati, G. & Koumoutsakos, P. 2018 Efficient collective swimming by harnessing vortices through deep reinforcement learning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 (23), 5849–5854.10.1073/pnas.1800923115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, R., Walters, R. & Yu, R. 2021 Incorporating symmetry into deep dynamics models for improved generalization. In ICLR.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Li, Z., Yuan, Z., Peng, W., Liu, T. & Wang, J. 2024 Prediction of turbulent channel flow using Fourier neural operator-based machine-learning strategy. Phys. Rev. Fluids 9 (8), 084604.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.9.084604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, Z., Dufour, E.R., Pelletier, C., Fua, P. & Bauerheim, M. 2024 DiffAirfoil: an efficient novel airfoil sampler based on latent space diffusion model for aerodynamic shape optimization. In AIAA Aviation Forum, p. 3755.10.2514/6.2024-3755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiler, M. & Cesa, G. 2019 General E(2) - equivariant steerable CNNs. In 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.Google Scholar
Weiler, M., Forré, P., Verlinde, E. & Welling, M. 2023 Equivariant and Coordinate Independent Convolutional Networks. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Weiler, M., Geiger, M., Welling, M., Boomsma, W. & Cohen, T.S. 2018 3D steerable CNNs: learning rotationally equivariant features in volumetric data. Adv. Neural Inform. Proc. Syst. 31.Google Scholar
Wigner, E. 1960 The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences. Commun. Pure Appl. Maths 13 (1), 1–14.10.1002/cpa.3160130102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, C., Zhu, M., Tan, Q., Kartha, Y. & Lu, L. 2023 A comprehensive study of non-adaptive and residual-based adaptive sampling for physics-informed neural networks. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng 403 (A), 115671.10.1016/j.cma.2022.115671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z., Jain, P., Wright, M.A., Mirhoseini, A., Gonzalez, J.E. & Stoica, I. 2021 Representing long-range context for graph neural networks with global attention. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35.Google Scholar
Xia, S., Xiong, Z., Luo, Y., Xu, X. & Zhang, G. 2015 Effectiveness of the Euclidean distance in high dimensional spaces. Optik 126 (24), 5614–5619.10.1016/j.ijleo.2015.09.093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y., Franz, E., Chu, M. & Thuerey, N. 2018 Tempogan: a temporally coherent, volumetric gan for super-resolution fluid flow. ACM Trans. Graph. 37 (4), 1–15.Google Scholar
Xing, V. & Lapeyre, C.J. 2023 Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Subgrid-Scale Flame Wrinkling. Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-031-16248-0_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J., Zhou, K., Li, Y. & Liu, Z. 2024 Generalized out-of-distribution detection: a survey. Intl J. Comput. Vis. 132, 5635–5662.10.1007/s11263-024-02117-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Y., Kirchmeyer, M., Franceschi, J.-Y., Rakotomamonjy, A. & Gallinary, P. 2023 Continuous PDE dynamics forecasting with implicit neural representations. In ICLR.Google Scholar
Yoshida, H. 1990 Construction of higher order symplectic integrators. Phys. Lett. A 150 (5–7), 262–268.10.1016/0375-9601(90)90092-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, L., et al. 2021 Florence: a new foundation model for computer vision. arXiv 2111.11432v1.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. & Schaeffer, H. 2019 On the convergence of the SINDy algorithm. SIAM Multiscale Model. Simul. 17 (3), 948–972.10.1137/18M1189828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., Kim, S., Lu, P.Y. & Soljacic, M. 2023 Deep learning and symbolic regression for discovering parametric equations. IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks Learn. Syst. 35 (11), 16775–16787.10.1109/TNNLS.2023.3297978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, P., Askham, T., Brunton, S.L., Kutz, J.N. & Aravking, A.Y. 2018 A unified framework for sparse relaxed regularized regression: Sr3. IEEE Access 7, 1404–1423.10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2886528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J., Cui, G., hu, S., Zhang, Z., Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, L., Li, C. & Sun, M. 2020 Graph neural networks: a review of methods and applications. AI Open 1, 57–81.10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar