Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Symmetry aware Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes turbulence models with equivariant neural networks

Aaron Miller, Sahil Kommalapati, Robert Moser, Petros Koumoutsakos

TL;DR

The paper develops symmetry‑aware Reynolds‑averaged turbulence closures by embedding tensor functions in equivariant neural networks (ENNs) and introducing an exact linear‑constraint layer. Grounded in the Kassinos–Reynolds RDT structure‑tensor framework, the approach learns closures for M, L, and J that depend on input tensors and, crucially, can incorporate nonlinear Q^* effects. Experimental results on rapid distortion theory data demonstrate state‑of‑the‑art accuracy, with ENNs outperforming tensor‑basis methods while enforcing physical symmetries and linear contractions exactly. The method removes the need to pre‑derive tensor bases and enables flexible exploration of model dependencies within a rigorous symmetry‑preserving setting, with potential extension to full RANS solvers and broader tensor‑function problems.

Abstract

Accurate and generalizable Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models for turbulent flows rely on effective closures. We introduce tensor-based, symmetry aware closures using equivariant neural networks (ENNs) and present an algorithm for enforcing algebraic contraction relations among tensor components. The modeling approach builds on the structure tensor framework introduced by Kassinos and Reynolds to learn closures in the rapid distortion theory setting. Experiments show that ENNs can effectively learn relationships involving high-order tensors, meeting or exceeding the performance of existing models in tasks such as predicting the rapid pressure-strain correlation. Our results show that ENNs provide a physically consistent alternative to classical tensor basis models, enabling end-to-end learning of unclosed terms in RANS and fast exploration of model dependencies.

Symmetry aware Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes turbulence models with equivariant neural networks

TL;DR

The paper develops symmetry‑aware Reynolds‑averaged turbulence closures by embedding tensor functions in equivariant neural networks (ENNs) and introducing an exact linear‑constraint layer. Grounded in the Kassinos–Reynolds RDT structure‑tensor framework, the approach learns closures for M, L, and J that depend on input tensors and, crucially, can incorporate nonlinear Q^* effects. Experimental results on rapid distortion theory data demonstrate state‑of‑the‑art accuracy, with ENNs outperforming tensor‑basis methods while enforcing physical symmetries and linear contractions exactly. The method removes the need to pre‑derive tensor bases and enables flexible exploration of model dependencies within a rigorous symmetry‑preserving setting, with potential extension to full RANS solvers and broader tensor‑function problems.

Abstract

Accurate and generalizable Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models for turbulent flows rely on effective closures. We introduce tensor-based, symmetry aware closures using equivariant neural networks (ENNs) and present an algorithm for enforcing algebraic contraction relations among tensor components. The modeling approach builds on the structure tensor framework introduced by Kassinos and Reynolds to learn closures in the rapid distortion theory setting. Experiments show that ENNs can effectively learn relationships involving high-order tensors, meeting or exceeding the performance of existing models in tasks such as predicting the rapid pressure-strain correlation. Our results show that ENNs provide a physically consistent alternative to classical tensor basis models, enabling end-to-end learning of unclosed terms in RANS and fast exploration of model dependencies.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 38 sections, 74 equations, 10 figures, 4 tables, 1 algorithm.

Figures (10)

  • Figure 1: Decomposing a vector space into irreducible representation subspaces. The colored matrices represent an arbitrary element of an $\mathrm{O}(3)$ representation; the vectors show the components in the basis of the matrix representation. Left: An element of $\mathrm{O}(3)$ acts via the tensor product representation $\mathbf{R}\otimes_{\mathrm{kr}}\mathbf{R}$, which is reducible. Right: A change-of-basis matrix $\mathbf{S}_\rho$ exists that decomposes the tensor product representation into a direct sum of irreducible representations. Some of these irreducible subspaces may be ignored given index permutation symmetries, and particular component values may be fixed by linear tensor constraints. Visualization inspired by smidt_intuition_2023.
  • Figure 2: ENN architecture.
  • Figure 3: Evolution of wavevectors $\bm{\kappa}(t)$ at which the velocity spectrum tensor $\mathbf{\Phi}$ can be integrated independently. Each marker corresponds to a wavevector, initially located at a spherical design quadrature point on the unit sphere. As time proceeds (left to right in the figure), the wavevectors distort, and the values of $\mathbf{\Phi}$ following the wavevectors evolve.
  • Figure 4: ENN training and validation loss when learning $\mathbf{M}^*$ (left) and $\mathbf{M}$ (right) with and without the constraints in Tab. \ref{['tab:constraints']} enforced. "W/ constraints" refers to learning with supervision from only the nine components of the $\ell = 4$ irreducible representation, while "w/o constraints" refers to supervising on all 15 components of the $0\rm{e} + 2\rm{e} + 4\rm{e}$ spherical tensor.
  • Figure 5: Error in predictions of the rapid pressure-rate-of-strain-tensor $\mathcal{R}_{ij}^{(r)}$. Left: Errors listed in decreasing order. Right. Errors ordered by amount of strain, with $\abs{\alpha} = 1$ representing pure strain and $\abs{\alpha} = 0$ representing pure rotation. The LRR and IP curves nearly overlap, as do the two TBM curves.
  • ...and 5 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (10)

  • Definition 4.1: Cartesian tensor
  • Definition 4.2: Spherical tensor
  • Definition 4.3: Equivariance
  • Definition 8.1: Group
  • Definition 8.2: Group action
  • Definition 8.3: Group representation
  • Definition 8.4: Homomorphism
  • Definition 8.5: $G$-invariance
  • Definition 8.6: irreducible representation
  • Definition 8.7: Isotypic component