pbdl-book/physgrad-discuss.md

29 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

2021-03-03 04:17:43 +01:00
Discussion
=======================
2021-06-27 16:49:32 +02:00
In a way, the learning via physical gradients provide the tightest possible coupling
2021-03-26 03:28:05 +01:00
of physics and NNs: the full non-linear process of the PDE model directly steers
the optimization of the NN.
Naturally, this comes at a cost - invertible simulators are more difficult to build
2021-06-27 16:49:32 +02:00
(and less common) than the first-order gradients from
deep learning and adjoint optimizations. Nonetheless, if they're available,
invertible simulators can speed up convergence, and yield models that have an inherently better performance.
2021-03-26 03:28:05 +01:00
Thus, once trained, these models can give a performance that we simply can't obtain
by, e.g., training longer with a simpler approach. So, if we plan to evaluate these
models often (e.g., ship them in an application), this increased one-time cost
can pay off in the long run.
2021-03-03 04:17:43 +01:00
2021-04-11 14:17:03 +02:00
![Divider](resources/divider1.jpg)
2021-03-03 04:17:43 +01:00
## Summary
✅ Pro:
2021-03-26 03:28:05 +01:00
- Very accurate "gradient" information for learning and optimization.
- Improved convergence and model performance.
- Tightest possible coupling of model PDEs and learning.
2021-03-03 04:17:43 +01:00
❌ Con:
2021-03-26 03:28:05 +01:00
- Requires inverse simulators (at least local ones).
2021-06-27 16:49:32 +02:00
- Less wide-spread availability than, e.g., differentiable physics simulators.