Abstract:Traditionally, classical numerical schemes have been employed to solve partial differential equations (PDEs) using computational methods. Recently, neural network-based methods have emerged. Despite these advancements, neural network-based methods, such as physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) and neural operators, exhibit deficiencies in robustness and generalization. To address these issues, numerous studies have integrated classical numerical frameworks with machine learning techniques, incorporating neural networks into parts of traditional numerical methods. In this study, we focus on hyperbolic conservation laws by replacing traditional numerical fluxes with neural operators. To this end, we developed loss functions inspired by established numerical schemes related to conservation laws and approximated numerical fluxes using Fourier neural operators (FNOs). Our experiments demonstrated that our approach combines the strengths of both traditional numerical schemes and FNOs, outperforming standard FNO methods in several respects. For instance, we demonstrate that our method is robust, has resolution invariance, and is feasible as a data-driven method. In particular, our method can make continuous predictions over time and exhibits superior generalization capabilities with out-of-distribution (OOD) samples, which are challenges that existing neural operator methods encounter.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to use Fourier Neural Operators (FNOs) to approximate the numerical fluxes in hyperbolic conservation laws in order to overcome the deficiencies in robustness and generalization ability of existing neural - network - based methods. Specifically, the author proposes a new loss function and verifies the advantages of their method in multiple aspects through experiments, such as time - invariance, the feasibility of data - driven methods, superior generalization ability for out - of - distribution samples, etc. The following are the main problems and objectives mentioned in the paper:
1. **Improve the Robustness and Generalization Ability of Numerical Methods**:
- Existing neural - network - based methods, such as Physics - Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) and neural operators, have problems with insufficient robustness and generalization ability when dealing with hyperbolic conservation laws.
- By combining traditional numerical frameworks and machine - learning techniques, especially using Fourier Neural Operators (FNOs) to approximate numerical fluxes, the author aims to solve these problems.
2. **Develop a New Loss Function**:
- The author designs two loss functions: the time - marching loss \( L_{\text{tm}} \) and the consistency loss \( L_{\text{consi}} \).
- The time - marching loss \( L_{\text{tm}} \) is used to ensure the consistency of the model during the time - marching process.
- The consistency loss \( L_{\text{consi}} \) is used to ensure the consistency between the numerical fluxes generated by the model and the physical fluxes.
3. **Verify the Effectiveness of the Method**:
- The author verifies the effectiveness of the proposed method through a series of experiments, including the one - dimensional inviscid Burgers equation, the one - dimensional linear advection equation, and other types of conservation law problems.
- The experimental results show that this method performs well in long - term prediction tasks and inferences on out - of - distribution samples, and can be compatible with more complex numerical schemes (such as high - order Runge - Kutta methods).
4. **Theoretical Analysis**:
- The author also provides a theorem for estimating the inference error of Flux FNO. This theorem combines the statistical properties of the neural network model and the properties of classical numerical theory, further proving the effectiveness and stability of the method.
### Formula Summary
- **Time - Marching Loss**:
\[
L_{\text{tm}}(U) = \sum_{n = 0}^{N}\left\|U_{n + 1}-U_{n}+\frac{t_{n}}{k}\left[G\left(U_{n}^{-p},\ldots,U_{n}^{+q};\theta\right)-G\left(U_{n}^{-p - 1},\ldots,U_{n}^{+q - 1};\theta\right)\right]\right\|_{2}^{2}
\]
- **Consistency Loss**:
\[
L_{\text{consi}}(U) = \sum_{n = 0}^{N}\left\|G\left(U_{n},\ldots,U_{n};\theta\right)-F\left(U_{n}\right)\right\|_{2}^{2}
\]
- **Total Loss**:
\[
L(\{U_{i}\},G(\cdot;\theta))=\sum_{i = 1}^{m}(L_{\text{tm}}(U_{i})+\lambda L_{\text{consi}}(U_{i})),\quad0\leq\lambda
\]
- **Inference Error Estimation**:
\[
\left\|U_{k + 1}-\tilde{U}_{k + 1}\right\|_{2}^{2}\leq\min\left\{
C_{3}\gamma\epsilon_{t_{k}}^{\text{tm}}B\sqrt{m}+\epsilon_{t_{k}}^{\text{tm}2}\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{}{}}\right)
\right\}