Brezis, H. & Browder, F. Partial differential equations in the 20th century. Adv. Math. 135, 76–144 (1998).
Google Scholar
Dissanayake, M. & Phan-Thien, N. Neural-network-based approximations for solving partial differential equations. Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 10, 195–201 (1994).
Google Scholar
Rico-Martinez, R. & Kevrekidis, I. G. Continuous time modeling of nonlinear systems: a neural network-based approach. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks 1522–1525 (IEEE, 1993).
González-García, R., Rico-Martìnez, R. & Kevrekidis, I. G. Identification of distributed parameter systems: a neural net based approach. Comput. Chem. Eng. 22, S965–S968 (1998).
Google Scholar
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G. 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 (2019).
Google Scholar
Yu, B. et al. The Deep Ritz method: a deep learning-based numerical algorithm for solving variational problems. Commun. Math. Stat. 6, 1–12 (2018).
Google Scholar
Müller, J. & Zeinhofer, M. Deep Ritz revisited. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.03937 (2019).
Gao, H., Zahr, M. J. & Wang, J.-X. Physics-informed graph neural Galerkin networks: a unified framework for solving PDE-governed forward and inverse problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 390, 114502 (2022).
Google Scholar
Bruna, J., Peherstorfer, B. & Vanden-Eijnden, E. Neural Galerkin schemes with active learning for high-dimensional evolution equations. J. Comput. Phys. 496, 112588 (2024).
Google Scholar
Battaglia, P. W. et al. Relational inductive biases, deep learning and graph networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01261 (2018).
Sanchez-Gonzalez, A. et al. Learning to simulate complex physics with graph networks. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning 8459–8468 (PMLR, 2020).
Burger, M. et al. Connections between deep learning and partial differential equations. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 32, 395–396 (2021).
Google Scholar
Loiseau, J.-C. & Brunton, S. L. Constrained sparse Galerkin regression. J. Fluid Mech. 838, 42–67 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cranmer, M. et al. Lagrangian neural networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04630 (2020).
Brunton, S. L., Noack, B. R. & Koumoutsakos, P. Machine learning for fluid mechanics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 52, 477–508 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wang, R., Walters, R. & Yu, R. Incorporating symmetry into deep dynamics models for improved generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2021).
Wang, R., Kashinath, K., Mustafa, M., Albert, A. & Yu, R. Towards physics-informed deep learning for turbulent flow prediction. In Proc. 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining 1457–1466 (ACM, 2020).
Brandstetter, J., Berg, R. V. D., Welling, M. & Gupta, J. K. Clifford neural layers for PDE modeling. In Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2023)
De Haan, P., Weiler, M., Cohen, T. & Welling, M. Gauge equivariant mesh CNNS: anisotropic convolutions on geometric graphs. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2021).
Brandstetter, J., Welling, M. & Worrall, D. E. Lie point symmetry data augmentation for neural PDE solvers. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning 2241–2256 (PMLR, 2022).
Brandstetter, J., Worrall, D. & Welling, M. Message passing neural PDE solvers. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03376 (2022).
Karniadakis, G. E. et al. Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 422–440 (2021).
Google Scholar
Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems and Control 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Bongard, J. & Lipson, H. Automated reverse engineering of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 9943–9948 (2007).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. & Lipson, H. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. Science 324, 81–85 (2009).
Google Scholar
Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932–3937 (2016).
Google Scholar
Cranmer, M. Interpretable machine learning for science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01582 (2023).
Rudy, S. H., Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations. Sci. Adv 3, e1602614 (2017).
Google Scholar
Schaeffer, H. Learning partial differential equations via data discovery and sparse optimization. Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 473, 20160446 (2017).
Google Scholar
Zanna, L. & Bolton, T. Data-driven equation discovery of ocean mesoscale closures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088376 (2020).
Google Scholar
Schmelzer, M., Dwight, R. P. & Cinnella, P. Discovery of algebraic Reynolds-stress models using sparse symbolic regression. Flow Turbulence Combustion 104, 579–603 (2020).
Google Scholar
Beetham, S. & Capecelatro, J. Formulating turbulence closures using sparse regression with embedded form invariance. Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 084611 (2020).
Google Scholar
Beetham, S., Fox, R. O. & Capecelatro, J. Sparse identification of multiphase turbulence closures for coupled fluid-particle flows. J. Fluid Mech. 914, A11 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bakarji, J. & Tartakovsky, D. M. Data-driven discovery of coarse-grained equations. J. Comput. Phys. 434, 110219 (2021).
Google Scholar
Maslyaev, M., Hvatov, A. & Kalyuzhnaya, A. Data-driven partial derivative equations discovery with evolutionary approach. In Proc. Computational Science–ICCS 2019: 19th International Conference Part V 19, 635–641 (Springer, 2019).
Xu, H., Zhang, D. & Wang, N. Deep-learning based discovery of partial differential equations in integral form from sparse and noisy data. J. Comput. Phys. 445, 110592 (2021).
Google Scholar
Xu, H., Chang, H. & Zhang, D. DLGA-PDE: Discovery of PDEs with incomplete candidate library via combination of deep learning and genetic algorithm. J. Comput. Phys. 418, 109584 (2020).
Google Scholar
Xu, H., Zhang, D. & Zeng, J. Deep-learning of parametric partial differential equations from sparse and noisy data. Phys. Fluids 33, 037132 (2021).
Google Scholar
Xu, H. & Zhang, D. Robust discovery of partial differential equations in complex situations. Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033270 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Q., Xu, H. & Zhang, D. Symbolic genetic algorithm for discovering open-form partial differential equations (SGA-PDE). Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023174 (2022).
Google Scholar
Taira, K. & Colonius, T. The immersed boundary method: a projection approach. J. Comput. Phys. 225, 2118–2137 (2007).
Google Scholar
Colonius, T. & Taira, K. A fast immersed boundary method using a nullspace approach and multi-domain far-field boundary conditions. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197, 2131–2146 (2008).
Google Scholar
Van Breugel, F., Kutz, J. N. & Brunton, B. W. Numerical differentiation of noisy data: a unifying multi-objective optimization framework. IEEE Access 8, 196865–196877 (2020).
Google Scholar
Messenger, D. A. & Bortz, D. M. Weak SINDy: Galerkin-based data-driven model selection. Multiscale Model. Simul. 19, 1474–1497 (2021).
Google Scholar
Messenger, D. A. & Bortz, D. M. Weak SINDy for partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 443, 110525 (2021).
Google Scholar
Schaeffer, H. & McCalla, S. G. Sparse model selection via integral terms. Phys. Rev. E 96, 023302 (2017).
Google Scholar
Fasel, U., Kutz, J. N., Brunton, B. W. & Brunton, S. L. Ensemble-SINDy: robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learning and control. Proc. R. Soc. A 478, 20210904 (2022).
Google Scholar
Gurevich, D. R., Reinbold, P. A. & Grigoriev, R. O. Robust and optimal sparse regression for nonlinear PDE models. Chaos 29, 103113 (2019).
Google Scholar
Alves, E. P. & Fiuza, F. Data-driven discovery of reduced plasma physics models from fully kinetic simulations. Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033192 (2022).
Google Scholar
Reinbold, P. A., Gurevich, D. R. & Grigoriev, R. O. Using noisy or incomplete data to discover models of spatiotemporal dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 101, 010203 (2020).
Google Scholar
Suri, B., Kageorge, L., Grigoriev, R. O. & Schatz, M. F. Capturing turbulent dynamics and statistics in experiments with unstable periodic orbits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 064501 (2020).
Google Scholar
Reinbold, P. A., Kageorge, L. M., Schatz, M. F. & Grigoriev, R. O. Robust learning from noisy, incomplete, high-dimensional experimental data via physically constrained symbolic regression. Nat. Commun. 12, 3219 (2021).
Google Scholar
Pope, S. A more general effective-viscosity hypothesis. J. Fluid Mech. 72, 331–340 (1975).
Google Scholar
Ling, J., Kurzawski, A. & Templeton, J. Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance. J. Fluid Mech. 807, 155–166 (2016).
Google Scholar
Duraisamy, K., Iaccarino, G. & Xiao, H. Turbulence modeling in the age of data. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357–377 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ahmed, S. E. et al. On closures for reduced order models—a spectrum of first-principle to machine-learned avenues. Phys. Fluids 33, 091301 (2021).
Google Scholar
Supekar, R. et al. Learning hydrodynamic equations for active matter from particle simulations and experiments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2206994120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kaptanoglu, A. A. et al. PySINDy: a comprehensive Python package for robust sparse system identification. J. Open Source Softw. 7, 3994 (2022).
Google Scholar
Long, Z., Lu, Y., Ma, X. & Dong, B. PDE-Net: learning PDEs from data. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning 3208–3216 (PMLR, 2018).
Long, Z., Lu, Y. & Dong, B. PDE-Net 2.0: learning PDEs from data with a numeric-symbolic hybrid deep network. J. Comput. Phys. 399, 108925 (2019).
Google Scholar
Atkinson, S. Bayesian hidden physics models: uncertainty quantification for discovery of nonlinear partial differential operators from data. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04228 (2020).
Cai, J.-F., Dong, B., Osher, S. & Shen, Z. Image restoration: total variation, wavelet frames and beyond. J. Am. Math. Soc. 25, 1033–1089 (2012).
Google Scholar
Dong, B., Jiang, Q. & Shen, Z. Image restoration: wavelet frame shrinkage, nonlinear evolution PDEs and beyond. Multiscale Model. Simul. 15, 606–660 (2017).
Google Scholar
Schaeffer, H., Caflisch, R., Hauck, C. D. & Osher, S. Sparse dynamics for partial differential equations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6634–6639 (2013).
Google Scholar
Cranmer, M. D., Xu, R., Battaglia, P. & Ho, S. Learning symbolic physics with graph networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.05862 (2019).
Cranmer, M. et al. Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Larochelle, H. et al.) 17429–17442 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2020).
Callaham, J. L., Koch, J. V., Brunton, B. W., Kutz, J. N. & Brunton, S. L. Learning dominant physical processes with data-driven balance models. Nat. Commun. 12, 1016 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cross, M. C. & Hohenberg, P. C. Pattern formation outside of equilibrium. Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 851–1112 (1993).
Google Scholar
Bakarji, J., Callaham, J., Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Dimensionally consistent learning with Buckingham Pi. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 834–844 (2022).
Google Scholar
Koopman, B. O. Hamiltonian systems and transformation in Hilbert space. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 17, 315–318 (1931).
Google Scholar
Mezić, I. & Banaszuk, A. Comparison of systems with complex behavior. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenomena 197, 101–133 (2004).
Google Scholar
Mezić, I. Spectral properties of dynamical systems, model reduction and decompositions. Nonlinear Dyn. 41, 309–325 (2005).
Google Scholar
Mezić, I. Analysis of fluid flows via spectral properties of the Koopman operator. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 45, 357–378 (2013).
Google Scholar
Rowley, C. W., Mezić, I., Bagheri, S., Schlatter, P. & Henningson, D. Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 645, 115–127 (2009).
Google Scholar
Kutz, J. N., Brunton, S. L., Brunton, B. W. & Proctor, J. L. Dynamic Mode Decomposition: Data-Driven Modeling of Complex Systems (SIAM, 2016).
Budišić, M., Mohr, R. & Mezić, I. Applied Koomanism. Chaos 22, 047510 (2012).
Google Scholar
Brunton, S. L., Budišić, M., Kaiser, E. & Kutz, J. N. Modern Koopman theory for dynamical systems. SIAM Rev. 64, 229–340 (2022).
Google Scholar
Cover, T. M. Geometrical and statistical properties of systems of linear inequalities with applications in pattern recognition. IEEE Trans. Electron Comput. EC-14, 326–334 (1965).
Google Scholar
Hopf, E. The partial differential equation ut + uux = μuxx. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 3, 201–230 (1950).
Google Scholar
Cole, J. D. On a quasi-linear parabolic equation occurring in aerodynamics. Q. Appl. Math. 9, 225–236 (1951).
Google Scholar
Ablowitz, M. J., Kaup, D. J., Newell, A. C. & Segur, H. The inverse scattering transform-fourier analysis for nonlinear problems. Stud. Appl. Math. 53, 249–315 (1974).
Google Scholar
Ablowitz, M. J. & Segur, H. Solitons and the Inverse Scattering Transform (SIAM, 1981).
Lusch, B., Kutz, J. N. & Brunton, S. L. Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics. Nat. Commun. 9, 4950 (2018).
Google Scholar
Wehmeyer, C. & Noé, F. Time-lagged autoencoders: deep learning of slow collective variables for molecular kinetics. J. Chem. Phys 148, 241703 (2018).
Google Scholar
Mardt, A., Pasquali, L., Wu, H. & Noé, F. VAMPnets: deep learning of molecular kinetics. Nat. Commun. 9, 5 (2018).
Google Scholar
Takeishi, N., Kawahara, Y. & Yairi, T. Learning Koopman invariant subspaces for dynamic mode decomposition. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 1130–1140 (NIPS, 2017).
Yeung, E., Kundu, S. & Hodas, N. Learning deep neural network representations for Koopman operators of nonlinear dynamical systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06850 (2017).
Otto, S. E. & Rowley, C. W. Linearly recurrent autoencoder networks for learning dynamics. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 18, 558–593 (2019).
Google Scholar
Li, Q., Dietrich, F., Bollt, E. M. & Kevrekidis, I. G. Extended dynamic mode decomposition with dictionary learning: a data-driven adaptive spectral decomposition of the Koopman operator. Chaos 27, 103111 (2017).
Google Scholar
Eivazi, H., Guastoni, L., Schlatter, P., Azizpour, H. & Vinuesa, R. Recurrent neural networks and Koopman-based frameworks for temporal predictions in a low-order model of turbulence. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 90, 108816 (2021).
Google Scholar
Gin, C., Lusch, B., Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Deep learning models for global coordinate transformations that linearise PDEs. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 32, 515–539 (2021).
Google Scholar
Noé, F. & Nuske, F. A variational approach to modeling slow processes in stochastic dynamical systems. Multiscale Model. Simul. 11, 635–655 (2013).
Google Scholar
Nüske, F., Keller, B. G., Pérez-Hernández, G., Mey, A. S. & Noé, F. Variational approach to molecular kinetics. J.Chem. Theory Comput. 10, 1739–1752 (2014).
Google Scholar
Williams, M. O., Kevrekidis, I. G. & Rowley, C. W. A data-driven approximation of the Koopman operator: extending dynamic mode decomposition. J. Nonlinear Sci. 6, 1307–1346 (2015).
Google Scholar
Williams, M. O., Rowley, C. W. & Kevrekidis, I. G. A kernel approach to data-driven Koopman spectral analysis. J. Comput. Dyn. 2, 247–265 (2015).
Klus, S. Data-driven model reduction and transfer operator approximation. J. Nonlinear Sci. 28, 985–1010 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kutz, J. N., Proctor, J. L. & Brunton, S. L. Applied Koopman theory for partial differential equations and data-driven modeling of spatio-temporal systems. Complexity 2018, 6010634 (2018).
Page, J. & Kerswell, R. R. Koopman analysis of burgers equation. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 071901 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lu, L., Jin, P. & Karniadakis, G. E. DeepONet: learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.03193 (2019).
Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Z. & Karniadakis, G. E. Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 218–229 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kovachki, N. et al. Neural operator: learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24, 1–97 (2023).
Google Scholar
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 770–778 (IEEE, 2016).
Colbrook, M. J., Ayton, L. J. & Szőke, M. Residual dynamic mode decomposition: robust and verified Koopmanism. J. Fluid Mech. 955, A21 (2023).
Google Scholar
Colbrook, M. J. & Townsend, A. Rigorous data-driven computation of spectral properties of Koopman operators for dynamical systems. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 77, 221–283 (2024).
Google Scholar
Lumley, J. Toward a turbulent constitutive relation. J. Fluid Mech. 41, 413–434 (1970).
Google Scholar
Berkooz, G., Holmes, P. & Lumley, J. The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 25, 539–575 (1993).
Google Scholar
Holmes, P., Lumley, J. L., Berkooz, G. & Rowley, C. W. Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
Taira, K. et al. Modal analysis of fluid flows: an overview. AIAA J. 55, 4013–4041 (2017).
Google Scholar
Taira, K. et al. Modal analysis of fluid flows: applications and outlook. AIAA J. 58, 998–1022 (2020).
Google Scholar
Benner, P., Gugercin, S. & Willcox, K. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM Rev. 57, 483–531 (2015).
Google Scholar
Qian, E., Kramer, B., Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Lift & Learn: physics-informed machine learning for large-scale nonlinear dynamical systems. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 406, 132401 (2020).
Google Scholar
Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Data-driven operator inference for nonintrusive projection-based model reduction. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 306, 196–215 (2016).
Google Scholar
Benner, P., Goyal, P., Kramer, B., Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Operator inference for non-intrusive model reduction of systems with non-polynomial nonlinear terms. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 372, 113433 (2020).
Google Scholar
Peherstorfer, B., Drmac, Z. & Gugercin, S. Stability of discrete empirical interpolation and gappy proper orthogonal decomposition with randomized and deterministic sampling points. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 42, A2837–A2864 (2020).
Google Scholar
Holmes, P. & Guckenheimer, J. (eds) Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems and Bifurcations of Vector Fields Vol. 42 (Springer, 1983).
Rowley, C. W. & Marsden, J. E. Reconstruction equations and the Karhunen-Loève expansion for systems with symmetry. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 142, 1–19 (2000).
Google Scholar
Abraham, R., Marsden, J. E. & Ratiu, T. Manifolds, Tensor Analysis and Applications Vol. 75 (Springer, 1988).
Marsden, J. E. & Ratiu, T. S. Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry 2nd edn (Springer, 1999).
Lee, K. & Carlberg, K. T. Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders. J. Comput. Phys. 404, 108973 (2020).
Google Scholar
Schmid, P. J. Dynamic mode decomposition for numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 5–28 (2010).
Google Scholar
Loiseau, J.-C., Noack, B. R. & Brunton, S. L. Sparse reduced-order modeling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation. J. Fluid Mech. 844, 459–490 (2018).
Google Scholar
Deng, N., Noack, B. R., Morzynski, M. & Pastur, L. R. Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball. J. Fluid Mech. 884, A37 (2020).
Google Scholar
Loiseau, J.-C. Data-driven modeling of the chaotic thermal convection in an annular thermosyphon.Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn 34, 339–365 (2020).
Google Scholar
Guan, Y., Brunton, S. L. & Novosselov, I. Sparse nonlinear models of chaotic electroconvection. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 202367 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kaptanoglu, A. A., Morgan, K. D., Hansen, C. J. & Brunton, S. L. Physics-constrained, low-dimensional models for magnetohydrodynamics: first-principles and data-driven approaches. Phys. Rev. E 104, 015206 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kaptanoglu, A. A., Callaham, J. L., Aravkin, A., Hansen, C. J. & Brunton, S. L. Promoting global stability in data-driven models of quadratic nonlinear dynamics. Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 094401 (2021).
Google Scholar
Deng, N., Noack, B. R., Morzyński, M. & Pastur, L. R. Galerkin force model for transient and post-transient dynamics of the fluidic pinball. J. Fluid Mech. 918, A4 (2021).
Google Scholar
Callaham, J. L., Loiseau, J.-C., Rigas, G. & Brunton, S. L. Nonlinear stochastic modelling with Langevin regression. Proc. R. Soc. A 477, 20210092 (2021).
Google Scholar
Callaham, J. L., Brunton, S. L. & Loiseau, J.-C. On the role of nonlinear correlations in reduced-order modeling. J. Fluid Mech. 938, A1 (2022).
Google Scholar
Callaham, J. L., Rigas, G., Loiseau, J.-C. & Brunton, S. L. An empirical mean-field model of symmetry-breaking in a turbulent wake. Sci. Adv. 8, eabm4786 (2022).
Google Scholar
Pathak, J., Lu, Z., Hunt, B. R., Girvan, M. & Ott, E. Using machine learning to replicate chaotic attractors and calculate Lyapunov exponents from data. Chaos 27, 121102 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pathak, J., Hunt, B., Girvan, M., Lu, Z. & Ott, E. Model-free prediction of large spatiotemporally chaotic systems from data: a reservoir computing approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 024102 (2018).
Google Scholar
Champion, K., Lusch, B., Kutz, J. N. & Brunton, S. L. Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 22445–22451 (2019).
Google Scholar
Baddoo, P. J., Herrmann, B., McKeon, B. J. & Brunton, S. L. Kernel learning for robust dynamic mode decomposition: linear and nonlinear disambiguation optimization (LANDO). Proc. R. Soc. A 478, 20210830 (2022).
Google Scholar
Reed, M. & Simon, B. Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. I 2nd edn (Academic, 1980).
Courant, R. & Hilbert, D. Methods of Mathematical Physics: Partial Differential Equations (Wiley, 2008).
Li, Z. et al. Neural operator: graph kernel network for partial differential equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03485 (2020).
Li, Z. et al. Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09535 (2020).
Li, Z. et al. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08895 (2020).
Gin, C. R., Shea, D. E., Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. DeepGreen: deep learning of Green’s functions for nonlinear boundary value problems. Sci. Rep. 11, 21614 (2021).
Google Scholar
de Hoop, M. V., Kovachki, N. B., Nelsen, N. H. & Stuart, A. M. Convergence rates for learning linear operators from noisy data. SIAM-ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif. 11, 480–513 (2023).
Google Scholar
De Hoop, M., Huang, D. Z., Qian, E. & Stuart, A. M. The cost-accuracy trade-off in operator learning with neural networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13181 (2022).
Mollenhauer, M., Mücke, N. & Sullivan, T. Learning linear operators: infinite-dimensional regression as a well-behaved non-compact inverse problem. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08875 (2022).
Lange, H., Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. From Fourier to Koopman: spectral methods for long-term time series prediction. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22, 1–38 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lanthaler, S., Mishra, S. & Karniadakis, G. E. Error estimates for DeepONets: a deep learning framework in infinite dimensions. Trans. Math. Appl. 6, tnac001 (2022).
Google Scholar
Kovachki, N., Lanthaler, S. & Mishra, S. On universal approximation and error bounds for Fourier neural operators. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22, 13237–13312 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lyu, Y., Zhao, X., Gong, Z., Kang, X. & Yao, W. Multi-fidelity prediction of fluid flow based on transfer learning using Fourier neural operator. Phys. Fluids 35, 077118 (2023).
Google Scholar
Gopakumar, V. et al. Plasma surrogate modelling using Fourier neural operators. Nucl. Fusion 64, 056025 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kurth, T. et al. FourCastNet: accelerating global high-resolution weather forecasting using adaptive Fourier neural operators. In Proc. Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference 1–11 (ACM, 2023).
Raonić, B. et al. Convolutional neural operators for robust and accurate learning of PDEs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Oh, A. et al.) 77187–77200 (NeurIPS, 2023).
Fanaskov, V. & Oseledets, I. Spectral neural operators. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10573 (2022).
Chen, T. & Chen, H. Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 6, 911–917 (1995).
Google Scholar
Cao, S. Choose a transformer: Fourier or Galerkin. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 34, 24924–24940 (2021).
Li, Z., Meidani, K. & Farimani, A. B. Transformer for partial differential equations’ operator learning. Transact. Mach. Learn. Res. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=EPPqt3uERT (2023).
Vinuesa, R. & Brunton, S. L. Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 358–366 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mishra, S. A machine learning framework for data driven acceleration of computations of differential equations. Math. Eng. 1, 118–146 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bar-Sinai, Y., Hoyer, S., Hickey, J. & Brenner, M. P. Learning data-driven discretizations for partial differential equations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15344–15349 (2019).
Google Scholar
Stevens, B. & Colonius, T. Enhancement of shock-capturing methods via machine learning. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 34, 483–496 (2020).
Google Scholar
Barrault, M., Maday, Y., Nguyen, N. C. & Patera, A. T. An ‘empirical interpolation’ method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretization of partial differential equations. C. R. Math. 339, 667–672 (2004).
Google Scholar
Chaturantabut, S. & Sorensen, D. C. Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 32, 2737–2764 (2010).
Google Scholar
Stevens, B. & Colonius, T. FiniteNet: a fully convolutional LSTM network architecture for time-dependent partial differential equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03014 (2020).
Yousif, M. Z., Zhang, M., Yu, L., Vinuesa, R. & Lim, H. A transformer-based synthetic-inflow generator for spatially developing turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 957, A6 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kochkov, D. et al. Machine learning-accelerated computational fluid dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2101784118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Fukami, K., Fukagata, K. & Taira, K. Super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows with machine learning. J. Fluid Mech. 870, 106–120 (2019).
Google Scholar
Fukami, K., Fukagata, K. & Taira, K. Machine-learning-based spatio-temporal super resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 909, A9 (2021).
Google Scholar
Fukami, K. & Taira, K. Robust machine learning of turbulence through generalized Buckingham Pi-inspired pre-processing of training data. In APS Division of Fluid Dynamics Meeting Abstracts A31-004 (APS, 2021).
Pan, S., Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Neural implicit flow: a mesh-agnostic dimensionality reduction paradigm of spatio-temporal data. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24, 1607–1666 (2023).
Google Scholar
Takamoto, M. et al. PDEBench: an extensive benchmark for scientific machine learning. In Thirty-sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (NeurIPS, 2022).
