Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
28 lines (22 loc) · 1.18 KB

physgrad-discuss.md

File metadata and controls

28 lines (22 loc) · 1.18 KB

Discussion

In a way, the learning via physical gradients provide the tightest possible coupling of physics and NNs: the full non-linear process of the PDE model directly steers the optimization of the NN.

Naturally, this comes at a cost - invertible simulators are more difficult to build (and less common) than the first-order gradients from deep learning and adjoint optimizations. Nonetheless, if they're available, invertible simulators can speed up convergence, and yield models that have an inherently better performance. Thus, once trained, these models can give a performance that we simply can't obtain by, e.g., training longer with a simpler approach. So, if we plan to evaluate these models often (e.g., ship them in an application), this increased one-time cost can pay off in the long run.

Divider

Summary

✅ Pro:

  • Very accurate "gradient" information for learning and optimization.
  • Improved convergence and model performance.
  • Tightest possible coupling of model PDEs and learning.

❌ Con:

  • Requires inverse simulators (at least local ones).
  • Less wide-spread availability than, e.g., differentiable physics simulators.