Bayesian inverse Navier-Stokes problems: joint flow field reconstruction and parameter learning

We formulate and solve a Bayesian inverse Navier-Stokes (N-S) problem that assimilates velocimetry data in order to jointly reconstruct a 3D flow field and learn the unknown N-S parameters, including the boundary position. By hardwiring a generalised N-S problem, and regularising its unknown parameters using Gaussian prior distributions, we learn the most likely parameters in a collapsed search space. The most likely flow field reconstruction is then the N-S solution that corresponds to the learned parameters. We develop the method in the variational setting and use a stabilised Nitsche weak form of the N-S problem that permits the control of all N-S parameters. To regularise the inferred the geometry, we use a viscous signed distance field (vSDF) as an auxiliary variable, which is given as the solution of a viscous Eikonal boundary value problem. We devise an algorithm that solves this inverse problem, and numerically implement it using an adjoint-consistent stabilised cut-cell finite element method. We then use this method to reconstruct magnetic resonance velocimetry (flow-MRI) data of a 3D steady laminar flow through a physical model of an aortic arch for two different Reynolds numbers and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels (low/high). We find that the method can accurately i) reconstruct the low SNR data by filtering out the noise/artefacts and recovering flow features that are obscured by noise, and ii) reproduce the high SNR data without overfitting. Although the framework that we develop applies to 3D steady laminar flows in complex geometries, it readily extends to time-dependent laminar and Reynolds-averaged turbulent flows, as well as non-Newtonian (e.g. viscoelastic) fluids.

Sub-sampling of NMR Correlation and Exchange Experiments

Sub-sampling is applied to simulated $T_1$-$D$ NMR signals and its influence on inversion performance is evaluated. For this different levels of sub-sampling were employed ranging from the fully sampled signal down to only less than two percent of the original data points. This was combined with multiple sample schemes including fully random sampling, truncation and a combination of both. To compare the performance of different inversion algorithms, the so-generated sub-sampled signals were inverted using Tikhonov regularization, modified total generalized variation (MTGV) regularization, deep learning and a combination of deep learning and Tikhonov regularization. Further, the influence of the chosen cost function on the relative inversion performance was investigated. Overall, it could be shown that for a vast majority of instances, deep learning clearly outperforms regularization based inversion methods, if the signal is fully or close to fully sampled. However, in the case of significantly sub-sampled signals regularization yields better inversion performance than its deep learning counterpart with MTGV clearly prevailing over Tikhonov. Additionally, fully random sampling could be identified as the best overall sampling scheme independent of the inversion method. Finally, it could also be shown that the choice of cost function does vastly influence the relative rankings of the tested inversion algorithms highlighting the importance of choosing the cost function accordingly to experimental intentions.

Deep Learning as a Method for Inversion of NMR Signals

The concept of deep learning is employed for the inversion of NMR signals and it is shown that NMR signal inversion can be considered as an image-to-image regression problem, which can be treated with a convolutional neural net. It is further outlined, that inversion through deep learning provides a clear efficiency and usability advantage compared to regularization techniques such as Tikhonov and modified total generalized variation (MTGV), because no hyperparemeter selection prior to reconstruction is necessary. The inversion network is applied to simulated NMR signals and the results compared with Tikhonov- and MTGV-regularization. The comparison shows that inversion via deep learning is significantly faster than the latter regularization methods and also outperforms both regularization techniques in nearly all instances.