The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for prediction of regions of high Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes uncertainty
Open accessAbstract
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) models are widely used in industry to predict fluid flows, despite their acknowledged deficiencies. Not only do RANS models often produce inaccurate flow predictions, but there are very limited diagnostics available to assess RANS accuracy for a given flow configuration. If experimental or higher fidelity simulation results are not available for RANS validation, there is no reliable method to evaluate RANS accuracy. This paper explores the potential of utilizing machine learning algorithms to identify regions of high RANS uncertainty. Three different machine learning algorithms were evaluated: support vector machines, Adaboost decision trees, and random forests. The algorithms were trained on a database of canonical flow configurations for which validated direct numerical simulation or large eddy simulation results were available, and were used to classify RANS results on a point-by-point basis as having either high or low uncertainty, based on the breakdown of specific RANS modeling assumptions. Classifiers were developed for three different basic RANS eddy viscosity model assumptions: the isotropy of the eddy viscosity, the linearity of the Boussinesq hypothesis, and the non-negativity of the eddy viscosity. It is shown that these classifiers are able to generalize to flows substantially different from those on which they were trained. Feature selection techniques, model evaluation, and extrapolation detection are discussed in the context of turbulence modeling applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Cited by
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 · Cited by 20,384
Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanics
Brunton, S. L., Noack, B. R., & Koumoutsakos, P. (2020) · Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-010719-060214 · Cited by 3,063
Theory-Guided Data Science: A New Paradigm for Scientific Discovery from Data
Karpatne, A., Atluri, G., Faghmous, J. H., Steinbach, M., Banerjee, A., Ganguly, A., Shekhar, S., Samatova, N., & Kumar, V. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2017.2720168 · Cited by 1,752
Wang, J.-X., Wu, J.-L., & Xiao, H. (2017) · Physical Review Fluids · doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.2.034603 · Cited by 737
Fast flow field prediction over airfoils using deep learning approach
Sekar, V., Jiang, Q., Shu, C., & Khoo, B. C. (2019) · Physics of Fluids · doi:10.1063/1.5094943 · Cited by 486
Metadata
- Authors
- Ling, J., & Templeton, J.
- Venue
- Physics of Fluids
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2015-08-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- ISSN
- 1070-6631 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7666
- OpenAlex
- W1528439235
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for prediction of regions of high Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes uncertainty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.4927765
- The paper
- Ling, J., & Templeton, J. (2015). Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for prediction of regions of high Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes uncertainty. Physics of Fluids. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4927765
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.