Spatial Context or Memory? Sizing the Inputs of Neural Surrogates for Partially Observed Fields
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Spatial Context or Memory? Sizing the Inputs of Neural Surrogates for Partially Observed Fields
Abstract:Neural surrogates that forecast a physical field from sparse, noisy sensors read a window of nearby sensors and a history of past snapshots. Practitioners choose both by comparing fitted models with each other. Such comparisons cannot tell a model's shortfall from missing information. We measure the trade-off between window and history against the Bayes-optimal error of the same readings. An exact Gaussian analysis shows that noisy or sparse observation of a field with local dynamics makes the optimal forecast read distant sensors only through spatial correlation. On a forced linear field with a known optimum, trained models that read only the window come within 1% of it. We then train such models on viscous Burgers flow and the chaotic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (KS) equation, with every deciding comparison fixed before any test evaluation. In every field except KS, eight snapshots remove a smaller fraction of the one-snapshot error as the lead time, the number of steps to the forecast target, grows. In KS, for windows up to one correlation length, they remove a larger fraction. This lead-time inversion persists across sensor densities, three architectures and a two-dimensional domain. It shrinks as damping lowers the Lyapunov exponent. Damping also removes the linear instability of KS. We therefore tie the inversion to instability and leave chaos and linear amplification unseparated. For surrogate design the results give two rules. Size the window in correlation lengths of the field. Split a fixed input budget between window and history for the lead time the model will serve, because the best split moves toward wider windows as the lead time grows. In Burgers flow the split chosen at lead time one ends with 13.5 times the best error at lead time eight.
| Comments: | 26 pages, 11 figures, 8 tables. Code: this https URL |
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2610.12723 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2610.12723v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.12723
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Additional Features
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Algebraic Integer Quantization for Machine Learning Applications
Oct 12
-
CircuitTree: Composing Circuits into A Syllable Transcriber
Oct 12
-
Behind-the-Meter Photovoltaic Visibility from Net Smart Meters: Deployment Regimes and Operational Insights
Oct 12
-
GlucoPRISM: Protocol-Supervised Pretraining for Cross-Cohort Glucose Transfer
Oct 12
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.