Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Lagrangian Attention Tensor Networks for Velocity Gradient Statistical Modeling

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Feeding a short strain-rate history to a tensor-basis neural network substantially improves turbulence closure for the velocity gradient tensor.

desk verdict LATN is a plausible incremental step with a real a-priori improvement, but the headline a-posteriori gain is not cleanly attributable to the history input, and the paper oversells 'state-of-the-art'. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07078 v2 pith:ITYTH4VR submitted 2025-02-10 physics.flu-dyn

Criston Hyett , Yifeng Tian , Michael Woodward , Misha Stepanov , Chris Fryer , Daniel Livescu , Michael Chertkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords velocitygradienttensorLagrangianturbulenceclosurepressureHessianbasisneuralnetworkattentionmechanismdirectnumericalsimulationstrain-ratehistory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a turbulence closure for the velocity gradient tensor (VGT) is substantially more accurate when it is allowed to see a short history of the flow, not just the instantaneous gradient. The paper builds the Lagrangian Attention Tensor Network (LATN), which feeds time-delayed samples of the VGT into a tensor-basis neural network that predicts the pressure Hessian and viscous Laplacian terms. On forced isotropic DNS at $\mathrm{Re}\approx 240$, the LATN beats the prior Tensor Basis Neural Network by about 10 percent in eigenvector alignment and 23 percent in the a-posteriori $q$-$r$ phase-plane PDF. The learned memory kernels turn out to be predominantly symmetric for the pressure Hessian, which the paper reads as evidence that the strain-rate history is the informative memory. If correct, this points toward cheap memory-augmented closures rather than longer-range spatial or temporal models.

What carries the argument

The LATN is a tensor-basis neural network (TBNN) augmented with a time-delay convolution layer. For each output tensor, it computes scalar features $c^{(\ell)}=\sigma(K^{(m,\ell)}_{ij}A^{(m)}_{ij})$ from the history $A(t), A(t-\Delta), \dots, A(t-M\Delta)$, and feeds those features alongside the five VGT invariants into learned functions $g^{(n)}_{\theta}$ multiplying the traceless tensor basis $\{T^{(n)}\}$. The same architecture is applied separately to the pressure Hessian and to the viscous Laplacian, with extra skew-symmetric basis elements for the latter; training proceeds in tangent space and then through a Neural ODE rollout, and the learned kernels are interpreted as data-driven memory windows.

What would settle it

Train the same LATN architecture on DNS at substantially higher Reynolds number or with a different large-scale forcing, and compare the a-posteriori $q$-$r$ PDF against TBNN; if the EMD improvement vanishes and the learned pressure-Hessian kernels are no longer predominantly symmetric, the central strain-rate-history claim does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the conditional expectation $\langle H(t)\mid A(t)\rangle$ is degenerate: the same instantaneous VGT can correspond to different pressure Hessians, and that degeneracy is largely resolved by the recent Lagrangian history of the strain-rate tensor. The paper supports this by training a time-delay convolutional extension of the TBNN and showing improved a-priori alignment of pressure-Hessian eigenvectors and improved a-posteriori $q$-$r$ statistics after integrating a parameterized SDE over an eddy turnover time. It further reports that the learned convolution kernels are strongly symmetric, which implies, through $K : A = K : S$, that the network is effectively conditioning on strain-rate history when predicting the pressure Hessian.

Load-bearing premise

The model is trained and tested on a single forced isotropic DNS at $\mathrm{Re}\approx 240$, and the paper assumes that Kolmogorov-scale VGT statistics, including the strain-rate memory effect, are universal enough to carry over to higher Reynolds numbers and other flow geometries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Including roughly $2$ to $6$ Kolmogorov timescales of VGT history reduces a-priori loss by about 20 percent for the pressure Hessian and nearly 40 percent for the viscous Laplacian relative to the no-history TBNN.
  • A-posteriori evolution of the parameterized SDE matches DNS topology better: the $q$-$r$ phase-plane PDF improves by 23 percent in Earth Mover's Distance over TBNN.
  • The pressure-Hessian network learns mostly symmetric kernels, so its effective memory is the strain-rate history $S(t\leftarrow t-\tau)$, not the full gradient history.
  • Learned kernel norms decay significantly by about $8\tau_K$, suggesting an objective Lagrangian decorrelation timescale for VGT memory.
  • Neural ODE training stabilizes long-time statistics, keeping VGT component distributions close to DNS except in the far tails.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test higher Reynolds numbers; if the strain-rate memory result transfers, it implies the pressure-Hessian closure can be driven by the strain path alone rather than full VGT history.
  • The measured $2$-$8\tau_K$ memory window gives a concrete cutoff for Mori-Zwanzig style memory closures: beyond it, a Markovian approximation should suffice.
  • A direct extension would replace the fixed time-delay convolution with a trained attention mechanism over history; this could improve accuracy but would likely sacrifice the kernel-symmetry interpretability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Lagrangian Attention Tensor Network (LATN), an extension of the Tensor Basis Neural Network (TBNN) for modeling the velocity gradient tensor (VGT) in turbulence. LATN conditions pressure Hessian and viscous Laplacian closures on a short time history of the VGT using learned convolution kernels, and is trained in two stages: tangent-space optimization followed by Neural ODE training, with post-hoc calibration of stochastic forcing amplitudes. The authors report a-priori improvements in eigenvector alignment (approximately 10% EMD) and a-posteriori improvements in q-r phase-plane PDFs (approximately 23% EMD) relative to TBNN on a single forced isotropic DNS dataset at Re≈240. They also interpret the learned kernels as showing that symmetric, strain-rate-history information is most relevant for the pressure Hessian closure.

Significance. If the reported improvements hold, the paper offers a practical way to incorporate Lagrangian memory into VGT closures, which are needed for subgrid models in LES. The manuscript provides a substantial Lagrangian DNS dataset, a clear architectural extension of TBNN, and a useful quantitative metric (EMD on q-r PDFs). The a-priori history-length sweep in Fig. 3 does isolate the effect of memory on instantaneous prediction. However, the central claim that memory alone produces the a-posteriori gains is not fully established, and the generality of the results beyond Re≈240 is not tested. Credit is due for making the training and evaluation procedure detailed enough to be reproduced, and for the candid discussion of kernel interpretation limitations in Sec. 4.3.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figs. 7-8] The a-posteriori comparison between LATN and TBNN is not an ablation of the history input. Relative to the TBNN baseline, the LATN pipeline also introduces (i) Neural ODE training (Sec. 3.3), (ii) a nonlinear VL network (Sec. 3.2) instead of the linear VL model used in [49], and (iii) recalibrated stochastic forcing amplitudes Ds, Da via Eq. (24). Without an ablation that keeps these components fixed and varies only the memory length, the 23% EMD improvement in the q-r PDF cannot be attributed to the Lagrangian memory mechanism. This attribution is the paper's headline result and needs to be established directly.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Sec. 4] The manuscript does not state whether the TBNN baseline was retrained in the same two-stage framework with the same data, normalization, and Ds/Da calibration, or whether previously published TBNN results were used. Since TBNN is the sole baseline supporting the abstract's 'state-of-the-art' claim, the comparison must be documented in enough detail to ensure equivalence of training procedure and evaluation. As written, the comparison may be confounded by differences in training data, normalization, hyperparameter search, and stochastic forcing calibration.
  3. [Section 4.1, Fig. 3 and Sec. 4.2] Quantitative improvement values (approximately 20% and 40% in loss, 10% and 23% in EMD) are reported without error bars or multiple-seed statistics. Given the documented sensitivity of TBNN-type models to normalization and initialization [40], single-run comparisons do not provide sufficient evidence that the observed differences are significant beyond training stochasticity. The central quantitative claims should include uncertainty estimates or at least a statement of variability across independent training runs.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eq. (28), Table 1] The claim that symmetric kernels indicate strain-rate-history relevance is a post-hoc interpretation. A constrained experiment in which the PH convolution kernels are forced to be symmetric (or skew-symmetric) and the performance is compared against the unconstrained LATN would be needed to validate that this symmetry causes the predictive improvement. As presented, the symmetry statistic alone does not establish that strain-rate history is the mechanism driving the reported gains.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The term 'state-of-the-art' is used for performance that is compared only against a single in-house TBNN baseline. No comparison is made to other recent VGT modeling approaches, such as normalizing-flow models [5] or recent-deformation closures (RDGF) [25], so the claim overstates the evidence. At minimum, the abstract should be qualified to say 'state-of-the-art relative to the TBNN baseline considered here.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2)] There is a typo in 'our interest' which should be 'our interest' (missing word 'our' is present, but the phrase is incomplete); more importantly, Eq. (3) writes \frac{\partial p}{\partial x_k \partial x_k} where the intended expression is \frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial x_k \partial x_k}.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The symbol J in Eq. (28) is used for element-wise multiplication but is never defined; consider using a standard notation such as \odot.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 10] The description of Fig. 10 is inconsistent: the main text says the figure shows 'mean and deviation of learned kernel norms,' while the caption says 'each curve is a particular choice of hyper-parameters.' Please clarify what is plotted and how the mean and variance are computed.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The phrase 'The compact phase-plane removes bias of the magnitude of the VG' is grammatically unclear; consider rewording to, for example, 'The compact phase plane normalizes out the magnitude of the velocity gradient, removing a source of bias in the comparison.'
  5. [References] Several references lack complete bibliographic information, such as journal volume and page numbers for [16] and [29], which hinders verification; please complete these entries.
  6. [Title and Sec. 3.1] The method is a time-delay neural network with learned convolution kernels; calling it 'attention' may be misleading because no attention mechanism is implemented. If the authors intend an analogy to transformer attention, they should implement actual attention or rename the method to avoid confusion with the attention literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are empirical comparisons on held-out DNS data, with no fitted quantity equal to the reported metrics.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. The LATN's PH and VL closures are trained by tangent-space L2 losses and a one-Kolmogorov-timescale Neural ODE rollout, then evaluated on a-priori eigenvector alignment and a-posteriori q-r/component PDFs against DNS. The reported EMD improvements (10% a priori, 23% a posteriori) are distributional comparisons, not re-statements of training objectives. Equation (24) calibrates only the two stochastic forcing amplitudes, Ds and Da, against the one-tau_K residual; these parameters do not define the PH/VL networks and cannot by themselves force the 100-tau_K q-r PDF, so the long-time statistic retains predictive content. The TBNN baseline is from the authors' prior work, but the comparison is reproduced on the same test data rather than assumed by citation; the central LATN improvement therefore does not reduce to a self-citation. The kernel-symmetry interpretation in Section 4.3 is a post-hoc statistic, using the identity K o W = 0 for symmetric kernels to infer strain-rate sensitivity; this was not imposed during training, so it is an interpretation rather than a circular derivation. No step in the paper is equivalent, by its own equations, to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is a data-driven closure, so its mathematical content is mostly the tensor basis ansatz and the stochastic forcing ansatz; the free parameters are the fitted noise amplitudes and hand-tuned memory and filter hyperparameters. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Stochastic forcing amplitudes Ds, Da = not reported
    In Eqs. (23)-(24), these amplitudes are optimized after network training to minimize the one-tau_K residual of the SDE; they contribute to the a-posteriori statistics.
  • Convolution filter count L = not reported; selected by hyperparameter search
    L controls model expressivity and is tuned; the paper reports distributions across hyperparameter configurations but not the final value.
  • Memory length M (history window) = best models use 2-6 tau_K
    The number of past VGT samples fed to the temporal convolution is a hand-chosen hyperparameter; performance depends on it (Fig. 3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Incompressible Navier-Stokes equations govern the velocity field; the VGT evolution Eq. (3) follows by differentiation.
    Standard fluid dynamics background used throughout Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Scale separation and universality of small-scale VGT statistics justify training at Re about 240 and applying to higher Re.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Section 2 as motivation for DNS-based closure modeling; no cross-Re validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The deviatoric pressure Hessian can be represented by the 10-term tensor basis expansion Eq. (7) with scalar functions of local invariants and temporal features.
    This is the central modeling ansatz inherited from [49] and Zheng [61]; it restricts the closure to a specific functional form.
  • domain assumption A Langevin-type SDE with isotropic, traceless white noise closing the unresolved terms reproduces the statistics of the VGT.
    The stochastic forcing model of Eq. (23) follows [25]; its validity is assumed for the a-posteriori evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lagrangian Attention Tensor Networks for Velocity Gradient Statistical Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITYTH4VR

@misc{pith2026250207078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lagrangian Attention Tensor Networks for Velocity Gradient Statistical Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITYTH4VR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07078}
}
read the original abstract

Direct numerical simulation of turbulence at realistic Reynolds numbers is still beyond current computational capability, necessitating models that reduce the number of resolved spatial scales. Motivated by phenomenology and recent data-driven works based on universality of the smallest scales in fully developed turbulence, the statistical dynamics of the velocity gradient tensor (VGT) at the Kolmogorov scale become of critical importance in advancing turbulence models. Physics-informed machine learning has found considerable success in exploiting large datasets taken from direct numerical simulation of Navier-Stokes to improve models for the evolution of the VGT. In this work, we follow the long line of blending physical insight with data analysis to simultaneously advance both the modeling and understanding of the phenomenology of the VGT. Using the intimate connection between VGT evolution and fluid deformation, we develop the Lagrangian attention tensor network approach that significantly improves over current physics-informed machine learning methods. We demonstrate state-of-the-art performance in both a-priori and a-posteriori metrics, before interpreting the trained attention mechanisms to discover a surprising connection between the history of the strain-rate-tensor and the pressure Hessian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The architecture of the Tensor Basis Neural Network (TBNN). The invariants and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The full LATN; on the left the augmentation of temporal convolution feeding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We show loss (normalized by loss using “no model” prediction) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of Neural ODE vs tangent learning. Tangent learning is amenable to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The LATN outperforms the TBNN in pressure Hessian and viscous Laplacian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Joint PDF of the alignment θ1, θ3. Following from Fig. (5), the ideal alignment is a delta function in the bottom-left corner. This figure shows that not only does LATN individually align e1, e3 better than the TBNN, but it simultaneously aligns the eigenvectors more o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The statistics of VG topology in the normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of A∗ 11 := A11/ p ⟨A2 11⟩ and A∗ 12 := A12/ p ⟨A2 12⟩ for DNS, LATN, and TBNN. The log scale emphasizes discrepancies in the tails of the distributions. a symmetry metric for a matrix M as: sym(M) = ∥SM∥ − ∥AM∥ ∥SM∥ + ∥AM∥ , where SM .= 1 2 M + MT  , AM…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measurements of learned kernel symmetry. Blue outline shows the distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Learned time kernel norms per kernel length. The mean is shown in solid, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Lagrangian Ellipsoid Diagnostics in Rough Two-Dimensional Synthetic Flows: Aspect-Ratio Saturation and Reduced Modeling

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Particle-cloud ellipses in a rough synthetic 2D flow reach fluctuating order-one aspect ratios because aligned strain (a source) nearly cancels a geometric 'Löwner–John' projection residual (a sink); a small fitted st...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [49]

    Physics-informed machine learning of the lagrangian dynamics of velocity gradient tensor

    Yifeng Tian, Daniel Livescu, and Michael Chertkov. Physics-informed machine learning of the lagrangian dynamics of velocity gradient tensor. Physical Review Fluids, 6(9):094607, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [40]

    Modeling the pressure- hessian tensor using deep neural networks

    Nishant Parashar, Balaji Srinivasan, and Sawan S Sinha. Modeling the pressure- hessian tensor using deep neural networks. Physical Review Fluids , 5(11):114604, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [5]

    Tailor-designed models for the turbulent velocity gradient through normalizing flow

    Maurizio Carbone, Vincent J Peterhans, Alexander S Ecker, and Michael Wilczek. Tailor-designed models for the turbulent velocity gradient through normalizing flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19158 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [25]

    Johnson and Charles Meneveau

    Perry L. Johnson and Charles Meneveau. A closure for lagrangian velocity gradient evolution in turbulence using recent-deformation mapping of initially gaussian fields. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 804:387–419, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [1]

    Wm. T. Ashurst, A. R. Kerstein, R. M. Kerr, and C. H. Gibson. Alignment of vor- ticity and scalar gradient with strain rate in simulated navier–stokes turbulence. The Physics of Fluids , 30(8):2343–2353, 1987

    work page 1987

  6. [2]

    Sreenivasan

    Dhawal Buaria and Katepalli R. Sreenivasan. Forecasting small-scale dynamics of fluid turbulence using deep neural networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(30), July 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [3]

    Cantwell

    Brian J. Cantwell. Exact solution of a restricted euler equation for the velocity gradient tensor. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics , 4(4):782–793, 1992

    work page 1992

  8. [4]

    On the behavior of velocity gradient tensor invariants in di- rect numerical simulations of turbulence

    Brian J Cantwell. On the behavior of velocity gradient tensor invariants in di- rect numerical simulations of turbulence. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics , 5(8):2008–2013, 1993

    work page 2008

Show all 61 references
  1. [6]

    Neural ordinary differential equations

    Tian Qi Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations. CoRR, abs/1806.07366, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Shraiman

    Michael Chertkov, Alain Pumir, and Boris I. Shraiman. Lagrangian tetrad dy- namics and the phenomenology of turbulence. Physics of Fluids , 11(8):2394–2410, 1999

    1999

  3. [8]

    Mixing artificial and natural intelligence: From statis- tical mechanics to ai and back to turbulence

    Michael (Misha) Chertkov. Mixing artificial and natural intelligence: From statis- tical mechanics to ai and back to turbulence. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 57(33):333001, 2024

    2024

  4. [9]

    Modeling the pressure hessian and viscous laplacian in turbulence: comparisons with direct numerical simulation and implications on velocity gradient dynamics

    L Chevillard, C Meneveau, L Biferale, and F Toschi. Modeling the pressure hessian and viscous laplacian in turbulence: comparisons with direct numerical simulation and implications on velocity gradient dynamics. Physics of Fluids , 20(10), 2008

    2008

  5. [10]

    Lagrangian dynamics and statistical geometric structure of turbulence

    Laurent Chevillard and Charles Meneveau. Lagrangian dynamics and statistical geometric structure of turbulence. Physical review letters , 97(17):174501, 2006

    2006

  6. [11]

    M. S. Chong, A. E. Perry, and B. J. Cantwell. A general classification of three- dimensional flow fields. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics , 2(5):765–777, 1990

    1990

  7. [12]

    Reaction analogy based forcing for incompressible scalar turbulence

    Don Daniel, Daniel Livescu, and Jaiyoung Ryu. Reaction analogy based forcing for incompressible scalar turbulence. Physical Review Fluids , 3(9):094602, 2018

    2018

  8. [13]

    Girimaji

    Rishita Das and Sharath S. Girimaji. On the reynolds number dependence of velocity-gradient structure and dynamics. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 861:163–179, 2019

    2019

  9. [14]

    Girimaji

    Rishita Das and Sharath S. Girimaji. Characterization of velocity-gradient dy- namics in incompressible turbulence using local streamline geometry. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 895:A5, 2020

    2020

  10. [15]

    The effect of large-scale forcing on small- scale dynamics of incompressible turbulence

    Rishita Das and Sharath S Girimaji. The effect of large-scale forcing on small- scale dynamics of incompressible turbulence. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 941:A34, 2022. 20

    2022

  11. [16]

    Girimaji

    Rishita Das and Sharath S. Girimaji. Data-driven model for Lagrangian evolution of velocity gradients in incompressible turbulent flows, 2023. eprint: 2304.14529

    2023 arXiv

  12. [17]

    A voyage through turbulence

    Peter A Davidson, Yukio Kaneda, Keith Moffatt, and Katepalli R Sreenivasan. A voyage through turbulence . Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  13. [18]

    Duraisamy, G

    K. Duraisamy, G. Iaccarino, and H. Xiao. Turbulence modeling in the age of data. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 51:357, 2019

    2019

  14. [19]

    Falkovich, K

    G. Falkovich, K. Gawedzki, and M. Vergassola. Particles and fields in fluid tur- bulence. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 73:913–975, Nov 2001

    2001

  15. [20]

    Turbulence: The Legacy of A

    Uriel Frisch. Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov . Cambridge University Press, 1995

    1995

  16. [21]

    A diffusion model for velocity gradients in turbulence

    SS Girimaji and SB Pope. A diffusion model for velocity gradients in turbulence. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics , 2(2):242–256, 1990

    1990

  17. [22]

    Applicability of machine learning methodologies to model the statistical evolution of the coarse-grained velocity gradient tensor

    Criston Hyett, Yifeng Tian, Michael Woodward, Michael Chertkov, Daniel Livescu, and Mikhail Stepanov. Applicability of machine learning methodologies to model the statistical evolution of the coarse-grained velocity gradient tensor. Bulletin of the American Physical Society , 2022

    2022

  18. [23]

    Velocity-gradient dynamics in turbu- lence: effect of viscosity and forcing

    Eunhwan Jeong and Sharath S Girimaji. Velocity-gradient dynamics in turbu- lence: effect of viscosity and forcing. Theoretical and computational fluid dynam- ics, 16(6):421–432, 2003

    2003

  19. [24]

    Large-eddy simulations: where are we and what can we expect? AIAA journal , 38(4):605–612, 2000

    Javier Jimenez and Robert D Moser. Large-eddy simulations: where are we and what can we expect? AIAA journal , 38(4):605–612, 2000

    2000

  20. [26]

    Johnson and Michael Wilczek

    Perry L. Johnson and Michael Wilczek. Multiscale Velocity Gradients in Tur- bulence. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 56(1):annurev–fluid–121021–031431, January 2024

    2024

  21. [27]

    From Deep to Physics-Informed Learning of Turbulence: Diagnostics, December 2018

    Ryan King, Oliver Hennigh, Arvind Mohan, and Michael Chertkov. From Deep to Physics-Informed Learning of Turbulence: Diagnostics, December 2018. arXiv:1810.07785 [nlin, physics:physics, stat]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [28]

    A. N. Kolmogorov. The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large reynolds numbers. First published in Russian in Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (1941) 30(4). Reprinted in English in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and...

    1941

  23. [29]

    Lawson and J.R

    J.M. Lawson and J.R. Dawson. On velocity gradient dynamics and turbulent structure. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 780:60–98, 2015

    2015

  24. [30]

    Material deformation in a restricted euler model for turbulent flows: analytic solution and numerical tests

    Yi Li and Charles Meneveau. Material deformation in a restricted euler model for turbulent flows: analytic solution and numerical tests. Physics of Fluids , 19(1), 2007

    2007

  25. [31]

    Reynolds averaged tur- bulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance

    Julia Ling, Andrew Kurzawski, and Jeremy Templeton. Reynolds averaged tur- bulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 807:155–166, November 2016. 21

    2016

  26. [32]

    Livescu, F

    D. Livescu, F. A. Jaberi, and C. K. Madnia. Passive scalar wake behind a line source in grid turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. , 416:117–149, 2000

    2000

  27. [33]

    T. S. Lundgren. Linearly forced isotropic turbulence. Center for Turbulence Research Annual Research Briefs 2003, pages 461–473, 2003

    2003

  28. [34]

    Dynamics of velocity gradient invariants in turbulence: restricted euler and linear diffusion models

    Jes´ us Martın, C´ esar Dopazo, and Luis Vali˜ no. Dynamics of velocity gradient invariants in turbulence: restricted euler and linear diffusion models. Physics of Fluids, 10(8):2012–2025, 1998

    2012

  29. [35]

    Maulik, O

    R. Maulik, O. San, A. Rasheed, and P. Vedula. Subgrid modelling for two- dimensional turbulence using neural networks. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 858:122, 2019

    2019

  30. [36]

    Lagrangian dynamics and models of the velocity gradient tensor in turbulent flows

    Charles Meneveau. Lagrangian dynamics and models of the velocity gradient tensor in turbulent flows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 43:219–245, 2011

    2011

  31. [37]

    Mohan, Nicholas Lubbers, Misha Chertkov, and Daniel Livescu

    Arvind T. Mohan, Nicholas Lubbers, Misha Chertkov, and Daniel Livescu. Em- bedding hard physical constraints in neural network coarse-graining of three- dimensional turbulence. Physical Review Fluids , 8(1):014604, January 2023

    2023

  32. [38]

    M´ emoire sur la th´ eorie des d´ eblais et des remblais.Mem

    Gaspard Monge. M´ emoire sur la th´ eorie des d´ eblais et des remblais.Mem. Math. Phys. Acad. Royale Sci. , pages 666–704, 1781

  33. [39]

    Nonlocal nature of vortex stretching in an inviscid fluid

    Koji Ohkitani and Seigo Kishiba. Nonlocal nature of vortex stretching in an inviscid fluid. Physics of Fluids , 7(2):411–421, 1995

    1995

  34. [41]

    Petersen and D

    M. Petersen and D. Livescu. Forcing for statistically stationary compressible isotropic turbulence. Physics of Fluids , 22(11):116101, 2010

    2010

  35. [42]

    S. B. Pope. A more general effective-viscosity hypothesis. Journal of Fluid Me- chanics, 72(2):331–340, 1975

    1975

  36. [43]

    G. D. Portwood, P. P. Mitra, M. D. Ribeiro, T. M. Nguyen, B. T. Nadiga, J. A. Saenz, M. Chertkov, A. Garg, A. Anandkumar, A. Dengel, and others. Turbulence forecasting via neural ode. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05180 , 2019

    1911 arXiv

  37. [44]

    A metric for distributions with applications to image databases

    Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In Sixth international conference on com- puter vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271) , pages 59–66. IEEE, 1998

    1998

  38. [45]

    The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval

    Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval. International journal of computer vision , 40:99– 121, 2000

    2000

  39. [46]

    Physical consis- tency of subgrid-scale models for large-eddy simulation of incompressible turbulent flows

    Maurits H Silvis, Ronald A Remmerswaal, and Roel Verstappen. Physical consis- tency of subgrid-scale models for large-eddy simulation of incompressible turbulent flows. Physics of Fluids , 29(1), 2017

    2017

  40. [47]

    A. J. M. Spencer and R. S. Rivlin. Further results in the theory of matrix poly- nomials. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 4:214–230, 1959

    1959

  41. [48]

    Data-driven learning of mori–zwanzig operators for isotropic turbulence

    Yifeng Tian, Yen Ting Lin, Marian Anghel, and Daniel Livescu. Data-driven learning of mori–zwanzig operators for isotropic turbulence. Physics of Fluids , 33(12):125118, 2021. 22

    2021

  42. [50]

    Lagrangian large eddy simulations via physics-informed machine learning

    Yifeng Tian, Michael Woodward, Mikhail Stepanov, Chris Fryer, Criston Hyett, Daniel Livescu, and Michael Chertkov. Lagrangian large eddy simulations via physics-informed machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 120(34):e2213638120, August 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Tsinober, E

    A. Tsinober, E. Kit, and T. Dracos. Experimental investigation of the field of velocity gradients in turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. , 242:169–192, 1992

    1992

  44. [52]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Vieillefosse

    P. Vieillefosse. Internal motion of a small element of fluid in an inviscid flow. Physica A, 125:150–162, 1984

    1984

  46. [54]

    Vieillefosse

    P. Vieillefosse. Internal motion of a small element of fluid in an inviscid flow. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 125(1):150–162, 1984

    1984

  47. [55]

    On the small-scale structure of turbu- lence and its impact on the pressure field

    Dimitar G Vlaykov and Michael Wilczek. On the small-scale structure of turbu- lence and its impact on the pressure field. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 861:422– 446, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Waibel, T

    A. Waibel, T. Hanazawa, G. Hinton, K. Shikano, and K.J. Lang. Phoneme recog- nition using time-delay neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 37(3):328–339, 1989

    1989

  49. [57]

    Johns hopkins turbulence database (jhtdb), 2016

    M Wan, S Chen, G Eyink, C Meneveau, E Perlman, R Burns, Y Li, A Szalay, and S Hamilton. Johns hopkins turbulence database (jhtdb), 2016

    2016

  50. [58]

    Wang, J.-L

    J.-X. Wang, J.-L. Wu, and H. Xiao. Physics-informed machine learning approach for reconstructing reynolds stress modeling discrepancies based on dns data. Phys- ical Review Fluids , 2:034603, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Physics-informed machine learning with smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Hierarchy of reduced Lagrangian models of turbulence

    Michael Woodward, Yifeng Tian, Criston Hyett, Chris Fryer, Mikhail Stepanov, Daniel Livescu, and Michael Chertkov. Physics-informed machine learning with smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Hierarchy of reduced Lagrangian models of turbulence. Physical Review Fluids , 8(5):054602...

    2023

  52. [60]

    The pirouette effect in turbulent flows

    Haitao Xu, Alain Pumir, and Eberhard Bodenschatz. The pirouette effect in turbulent flows. Nature Physics, 7(9):709–712, 2011

    2011

  53. [61]

    Q.-S. Zheng. On the representations for isotropic vector-valued, symmetric tensor- valued and skew-symmetric tensor-valued functions. International Journal of En- gineering Science, 31(7):1013–1024, 1993. 23

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.