Predictive Limitations of Physics-Informed Neural Networks in Vortex Shedding

The recent surge of interest in physics-informed neural network (PINN) methods has led to a wave of studies that attest to their potential for solving partial differential equations (PDEs) and predicting the dynamics of physical systems. However, the predictive limitations of PINNs have not been thoroughly investigated. We look at the flow around a 2D cylinder and find that data-free PINNs are unable to predict vortex shedding. Data-driven PINN exhibits vortex shedding only while the training data (from a traditional CFD solver) is available, but reverts to the steady state solution when the data flow stops. We conducted dynamic mode decomposition and analyze the Koopman modes in the solutions obtained with PINNs versus a traditional fluid solver (PetIBM). The distribution of the Koopman eigenvalues on the complex plane suggests that PINN is numerically dispersive and diffusive. The PINN method reverts to the steady solution possibly as a consequence of spectral bias. This case study reaises concerns about the ability of PINNs to predict flows with instabilities, specifically vortex shedding. Our computational study supports the need for more theoretical work to analyze the numerical properties of PINN methods. The results in this paper are transparent and reproducible, with all data and code available in public repositories and persistent archives; links are provided in the paper repository at \url{https://github.com/barbagroup/jcs_paper_pinn}, and a Reproducibility Statement within the paper.

Experience report of physics-informed neural networks in fluid simulations: pitfalls and frustration

The deep learning boom motivates researchers and practitioners of computational fluid dynamics eager to integrate the two areas.The PINN (physics-informed neural network) method is one such attempt. While most reports in the literature show positive outcomes of applying the PINN method, our experiments with it stifled such optimism. This work presents our not-so-successful story of using PINN to solve two fundamental flow problems: 2D Taylor-Green vortex at $Re = 100$ and 2D cylinder flow at $Re = 200$. The PINN method solved the 2D Taylor-Green vortex problem with acceptable results, and we used this flow as an accuracy and performance benchmark. About 32 hours of training were required for the PINN method's accuracy to match the accuracy of a $16 \times 16$ finite-difference simulation, which took less than 20 seconds. The 2D cylinder flow, on the other hand, did not even result in a physical solution. The PINN method behaved like a steady-flow solver and did not capture the vortex shedding phenomenon. By sharing our experience, we would like to emphasize that the PINN method is still a work-in-progress. More work is needed to make PINN feasible for real-world problems.