“…In a priori (offline) tests, in which the accuracy of the SGS model in estimating the SGS term as a function of the resolved flow is evaluated, some of these studies have found the data-driven SGS models to accurately account for inter-scale transfers (including backscattering) and outperform physics-based models such as SMAG and DSMAG [7,56,75,120,122]. However, most of the same studies have also found that in a posteriori (online) tests, in which the data-driven SGS model is coupled with a coarse-resolution numerical solver, the LES model is unstable, leading to numerical blow-up or physically unrealistic flows [4,5,44,56,98,115,120,122]. While the reason(s) for these instabilities remain unclear, a number of remedies have been proposed, e.g., post-processing of the trained SGS model to remove backscattering or to attenuate the SGS feedback into the numerical solver, or combining the data-driven model with an eddy viscosity model [4,56,120,122] (also, see the excellent review by Beck and Kurz [5]).…”