Cited by 3,063Model Reduction and Neural NetworksMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows

Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanics

Open access
Brunton, Steven L., Noack, Bernd R., Koumoutsakos, Petros·2020·Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics

Abstract

The field of fluid mechanics is rapidly advancing, driven by unprecedented volumes of data from experiments, field measurements, and large-scale simulations at multiple spatiotemporal scales. Machine learning (ML) offers a wealth of techniques to extract information from data that can be translated into knowledge about the underlying fluid mechanics. Moreover, ML algorithms can augment domain knowledge and automate tasks related to flow control and optimization. This article presents an overview of past history, current developments, and emerging opportunities of ML for fluid mechanics. We outline fundamental ML methodologies and discuss their uses for understanding, modeling, optimizing, and controlling fluid flows. The strengths and limitations of these methods are addressed from the perspective of scientific inquiry that considers data as an inherent part of modeling, experiments, and simulations. ML provides a powerful information-processing framework that can augment, and possibly even transform, current lines of fluid mechanics research and industrial applications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-fluid-010719-060214

Cites

161 of 161 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Chen TQ, 2018, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, 6571
  2. Goodfellow I, 2016, Deep Learning
  3. Goodfellow I, 2014, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2672
  4. Hinton GE, 1986, Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, 1, 282
  5. Holland JH, 1975, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence
  6. Kim HJ, 2004, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17, 799
  7. Knaak M, 1997, IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Netw., 1, 48
  8. 10.1007/978-3-642-97610-0 · DOI
  9. Kolmogorov A, 1941, Cr. Acad. Sci. USSR, 30, 301
  10. Krizhevsky A, 2012, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, 1097
  11. Lumley J, 1970, Stochastic Tools in Turbulence
  12. Mahoney MW, 2011, Found. Trends Mach. Learn., 3, 123
  13. Mehta UB, 1984, Computational aerodynamics and artificial intelligence
  14. Minsky M, 1969, Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry
  15. Noack BR, 2018, Fluid-Structure-Sound Interactions and Control: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Fluid-Structure-Sound Interactions and Control, 23
  16. Ollivier Y, 2017, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 18, 564
  17. Rechenberg I, 1964, Annual Conference of the WGLR at Berlin in September, 35, 33
  18. Rechenberg I, 1973, Evolutionsstrategie: Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der Biologischen Evolution
  19. Schaul T, 2015, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 1312
  20. Sutton RS, 2018, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
  21. Takeishi N, 2017, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, 1130
  22. Tedrake R, 2009, Learning to fly like a bird
  23. Wu H, 2018, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 31, 3975

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brunton, S. L., Noack, B. R., & Koumoutsakos, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Venue
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Published
2020-01-05
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
477-508
ISSN
  • 0066-4189 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4479
OpenAlex
W2973119841
Cited by
3,063
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 599 · 2025: 554 · 2024: 539 · 2023: 454 · 2022: 408 · 2021: 330 · 2020: 164 · 2019: 15
FWCI
16.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-IDEX-0003, ANR-17-ASTR-0022)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-, W911NF-17-1-0422, AFOSR FA9550-18-1-0200, FA9550-18-1-0200)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-17-1-0422, W911NF-17-1-0306, W911NF, ARO W911NF-17-1-0306)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Model Reduction and Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Keywords
machine learning, fluid mechanics, data-driven modeling, flow control, flow optimization, large-scale simulation, spatial and temporal scales, scientific machine learning

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