Paper detail

Uncertainty Quantification for Data-driven Turbulence Modelling with Mondrian Forests

Data-driven turbulence modelling approaches are gaining increasing interest from the CFD community. However, the introduction of a machine learning (ML) model introduces a new source of uncertainty, the ML model itself. Quantification of this uncertainty is essential since the predictive capability of a data-driven model diminishes when predicting physics not seen during training. In this work, we explore the suitability of Mondrian forests (MF's) for data-driven turbulence modelling. MF's are claimed to possess many of the advantages of the commonly used random forest (RF) machine learning algorithm, whilst offering principled uncertainty estimates. An example test case is constructed, with a turbulence anisotropy constant derived from high fidelity turbulence resolving simulations. Shapley values, borrowed from game theory, are used to interpret the MF predictions. Predictive uncertainty is found to be large in regions where the training data is not representative. Additionally, the MF predictive uncertainty is found to exhibit stronger correlation with predictive errors compared to an a priori statistical distance measure, which indicates it is a better measure of prediction confidence. The MF predictive uncertainty is also found to be better calibrated and less computationally costly than the uncertainty estimated from applying jackknifing to random forest predictions. Finally, Mondrian forests are used to predict the Reynolds discrepancies in a convergent-divergent channel, which are subsequently propagated through a modified CFD solver. The resulting flowfield predictions are in close agreement with the high fidelity data. A procedure for sampling the Mondrian forests' uncertainties is introduced. Propagating these samples enables quantification of the uncertainty in output quantities of interest.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.