2021
DOI: 10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physics-informed machine learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
1,203
0
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3,194 publications
(1,488 citation statements)
references
References 127 publications
2
1,203
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of this study are in strong agreement with those observed by Meng et al (2021) and Wei (2021) that each found that AI was highly effective at predicting hurricane-induced SWHs. However, although contemporary applications of AI in the forecasting of both in mean and extreme (i.e., TC-forced) waves states have relied traditionally on singular inputs of SWH (Ali and Prasad, 2019;Zhao and Wang, 2018;Zhou et al, 2021a, b), a growing body of literature have demonstrated that the addition of other variables such as wind speed (as done here), wind direction and other variables improves forecast effectiveness (Kaloop et al, 2020;Zubier, 2020;Raj and Brown, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). Uncertainties in variable selection have also stimulated research into how to best identify predictors for the SWH or other predictands (Li and Liu, 2020;.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results of this study are in strong agreement with those observed by Meng et al (2021) and Wei (2021) that each found that AI was highly effective at predicting hurricane-induced SWHs. However, although contemporary applications of AI in the forecasting of both in mean and extreme (i.e., TC-forced) waves states have relied traditionally on singular inputs of SWH (Ali and Prasad, 2019;Zhao and Wang, 2018;Zhou et al, 2021a, b), a growing body of literature have demonstrated that the addition of other variables such as wind speed (as done here), wind direction and other variables improves forecast effectiveness (Kaloop et al, 2020;Zubier, 2020;Raj and Brown, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). Uncertainties in variable selection have also stimulated research into how to best identify predictors for the SWH or other predictands (Li and Liu, 2020;.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Accompanying increased scrutiny in building LSTM training datasets to improve predictions, the usage of physicsbased/informed/infused versions of LSTM and other artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms (Karniadakis et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2021) may help to bridge the gap in forecasting efficacy between physics-based third-generation numerical wave models such as WaveWatch III or SWAN. Crucially, this will ensure that forecasting remains significantly computationally cheaper than the usage of wave models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding (differences between pure ML and physics-informed ML) is worth discussing. The project of adding physical constraints to ML is an active area of research across most fields of science and engineering (Karniadakis et al, 2021), including hydrology (e.g., Zhao et al, 2019;Jiang et al, 2020;Frame et al, 2020). It is important to understand that there is only one type of situation in which adding any type of constraint (physically-based or otherwise) to a data-driven model can add value: if constraints help optimization.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In developing a hybrid PIML model, the physicsbased model can be used to provide the domain-expertise based checks and balances by penalising any physically inconsistent outputs. Additional discussions on the subject are available elsewhere, e.g., [72][73][74].…”
Section: Extracting Additional Scientific Value From ML Models Using a 'Grey Box Big Data' Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%