aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that no universal AI surrogate model exists for fluid dynamics under time-varying conditions, as architectural success depends entirely on whether the flow is boundary-driven or self-sustained. Researchers must select between direct full-field mapping and autoregressive latent representations based on the specific temporal memory requirements of their target system rather than relying on standard pointwise error metrics like RMSE. While these models offer massive speedups over traditional solvers, their validation requires failure-mode-resolved evaluation to ensure robustness across different dynamical regimes.
No Free Lunch in Flow Surrogates under Time-Varying Boundary Conditions: A Two-Regime Study
arXiv:2607.23667v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A flow surrogate validated on a simple regime is often taken as evidence that the approach will carry to a richer one. We test this assumption on two transient flows under time-varying boundary conditions emulating the process startup: the three-dimensional slurry film in chemical-mechanical planarisation (CMP), a core semiconductor-manufacturing process, and the two-dimensional Karman vortex street (KVS) behind a cylinder. Eight surrogate models are compared on one shared evaluation pipeline, differing in whether they learn the full field or a latent representation, and whether they predict trajectories in one shot or step by step. No single architecture wins both regimes. On the film, a one-shot full-field model reconstructs the process-relevant cumulative wall shear stress to 3.2% relative error. On the wake, a latent autoregressive DeepONet retains 96% of the shedding power that direct and one-shot models damp to almost zero. The deciding axis is the treatment of time. The self-sustained wake requires the phase memory that autoregressive feedback provides, while the boundary-driven film rewards a direct map. Pointwise RMSE picks the wrong model in both regimes, so the evaluation scores five physical questions instead, the field, its structure, invented motion, amplitude, and timing. The trained surrogates answer queries $10^3$ to $10^4$ times faster than the finite-element solver, but the offline cost of the training simulations means they pay off from the first query beyond the training set for CMP and the third for the KVS. The choice of surrogate should follow the dynamical character of the target flow, and its validation should use failure-mode-resolved metrics, since neither the winning architecture nor its validation transfers.
Abstract:A flow surrogate validated on a simple regime is often taken as evidence that the approach will carry to a richer one. We test this assumption on two transient flows under time-varying boundary conditions emulating the process startup: the three-dimensional slurry film in chemical-mechanical planarisation (CMP), a core semiconductor-manufacturing process, and the two-dimensional Karman vortex street (KVS) behind a cylinder. Eight surrogate models are compared on one shared evaluation pipeline, differing in whether they learn the full field or a latent representation, and whether they predict trajectories in one shot or step by step. No single architecture wins both regimes. On the film, a one-shot full-field model reconstructs the process-relevant cumulative wall shear stress to 3.2% relative error. On the wake, a latent autoregressive DeepONet retains 96% of the shedding power that direct and one-shot models damp to almost zero. The deciding axis is the treatment of time. The self-sustained wake requires the phase memory that autoregressive feedback provides, while the boundary-driven film rewards a direct map. Pointwise RMSE picks the wrong model in both regimes, so the evaluation scores five physical questions instead, the field, its structure, invented motion, amplitude, and timing. The trained surrogates answer queries $10^3$ to $10^4$ times faster than the finite-element solver, but the offline cost of the training simulations means they pay off from the first query beyond the training set for CMP and the third for the KVS. The choice of surrogate should follow the dynamical character of the target flow, and its validation should use failure-mode-resolved metrics, since neither the winning architecture nor its validation transfers.
Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Fluid Dynamics (physics.flu-dyn)
arXiv:2607.23667 [math.NA]
(or arXiv:2607.23667v1 [math.NA] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.23667 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 364 words
Related coverage

Impurities Induce Localisation Without a Characteristic Scale in Lattices
Quantum Zeitgeist · May 23, 2026

Thermodynamics and Objects
LessWrong · Sep 23, 2026
SPIR-V on ROCm: A Portable IR for AMD GPUs
AMD · Jul 20, 2026
BridgeTwist: Twisting Schr\"odinger Bridges for Training-Free Conditional Sampling
arXiv · Oct 14, 2026