Effects of boundary conditions in fully convolutional networks for learning spatio-temporal dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate modeling of boundary conditions is crucial in computational physics. The ever increasing use of neural networks as surrogates for physics-related problems calls for an improved understanding of boundary condition treatment, and its influence on the network accuracy. In this paper, several strategies to impose boundary conditions (namely padding, improved spatial context, and explicit encoding of physical boundaries) are investigated in the context of fully convolutional networks applied to recurrent tasks. These strategies are evaluated on two spatio-temporal evolving problems modeled by partial differential equations: the 2D propagation of acoustic waves (hyperbolic PDE) and the heat equation (parabolic PDE). Results reveal a high sensitivity of both accuracy and stability on the boundary implementation in such recurrent tasks. It is then demonstrated that the choice of the optimal padding strategy is directly linked to the data semantics. Furthermore, the inclusion of additional input spatial context or explicit physics-based rules allows a better handling of boundaries in particular for large number of recurrences, resulting in more robust and stable neural networks, while facilitating the design and versatility of such networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".