- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Invited
  • Perspective
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Machine learning in fluid dynamics: A critical assessment

Kunihiko Taira*

Georgios Rigas†

Kai Fukami‡

  • Department of Aerospace Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan

  • *Contact author: ktaira@seas.ucla.edu
  • †Contact author: g.rigas@imperial.ac.uk
  • ‡Contact author: kfukami1@tohoku.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 10, 090701 – Published 16 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8t52-mtb9

Abstract

The fluid dynamics community has increasingly adopted machine learning to analyze, model, predict, and control a wide range of flows. These methods offer powerful computational capabilities for regression, compression, and optimization. In some cases, machine learning has even outperformed traditional approaches. However, many fluid mechanics problems remain beyond the reach of current machine learning techniques. As the field moves from its current state toward a more mature paradigm, this article offers a critical assessment of the key challenges that must be addressed. Tackling these technical issues will not only deepen our understanding of flow physics but also expand the applicability of machine learning beyond fundamental research. We also highlight the importance of community-maintained datasets and open-source code repositories to accelerate progress in this area. Furthermore, the future success of machine learning in fluid dynamics will depend on effective training—not only for the next generation of researchers but also for established fluid mechanicians adapting to this evolving landscape. Data-driven fluid dynamics is in its critical transitional state over the next few years to shape its future. This perspective article aims to spark discussions and encourage collaborative efforts to advance the integration of machine learning in fluid dynamics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (69)

  1. M. P. Brenner, J. D. Eldredge, and J. B. Freund, Perspective on machine learning for advancing fluid mechanics, Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 100501 (2019).
  2. S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, and P. Koumoutsakos, Machine learning for fluid mechanics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 52, 477 (2020).
  3. C. Lee, J. Kim, D. Babcock, and R. Goodman, Application of neural networks to turbulence control for drag reduction, Phys. Fluids 9, 1740 (1997).
  4. M. Milano and P. Koumoutsakos, Neural network modeling for near wall turbulent flow, J. Comput. Phys. 182, 1 (2002).
  5. M. A. Kramer, Nonlinear principal component analysis using autoassociative neural networks, AIChE J. 37, 233 (1991).
  6. K. Fukagata and K. Fukami, Compressing fluid flows with nonlinear machine learning: mode decomposition, latent modeling, and flow control, Fluid Dyn. Res. 57, 041401 (2025).
  7. A. J. Linot, K. Zeng, and M. D. Graham, Turbulence control in plane Couette flow using low-dimensional neural ODE-based models and deep reinforcement learning, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 101, 109139 (2023).
  8. K. Fukami and K. Taira, Grasping extreme aerodynamics on a low-dimensional manifold, Nat. Commun. 14, 6480 (2023).
  9. K. Fukami, H. Nakao, and K. Taira, Data-driven transient lift attenuation for extreme vortex gust-airfoil interactions, J. Fluid Mech. 992, A17 (2024).
  10. K. Manohar, B. W. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, Data-driven sparse sensor placement for reconstruction: Demonstrating the benefits of exploiting known patterns, IEEE Control Syst. 38, 63 (2018).
  11. K. Fukami, R. Maulik, N. Ramachandra, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Global field reconstruction from sparse sensors with Voronoi tessellation-assisted deep learning, Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 945 (2021).
  12. K. Fukami, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows with machine learning, J. Fluid Mech. 870, 106 (2019).
  13. H. Kim, J. Kim, S. Won, and C. Lee, Unsupervised deep learning for super-resolution reconstruction of turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 910, A29 (2021).
  14. S. Maejima and S. Kawai, Unsupervised and supervised machine learning pipeline for super-resolution-based sub-grid scale modeling in coarse-grid large-eddy simulations, J. Fluid Mech. 1013, A28 (2025).
  15. K. Duraisamy, G. Iaccarino, and H. Xiao, Turbulence modeling in the age of data, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357 (2019).
  16. J. Ling, A. Kurzawski, and J. Templeton, Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance, J. Fluid Mech. 807, 155 (2016).
  17. A. Lozano-Durán and H. J. Bae, Machine learning building-block-flow wall model for large-eddy simulation, J. Fluid Mech. 963, A35 (2023).
  18. M. Oulghelou, S. Cherroud, X. Merle, and P. Cinnella, Machine-learning-assisted blending of data-driven turbulence models, Flow Turbulence Combust. (2025), doi:10.1007/s10494-025-00661-8.
  19. H. J. Bae and P. Koumoutsakos, Scientific multi-agent reinforcement learning for wall-models of turbulent flows, Nat. Commun. 13, 1443 (2022).
  20. J. Rabault, M. Kuchta, A. Jensen, U. Réglade, and N. Cerardi, Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control, J. Fluid Mech. 865, 281 (2019).
  21. P. Gunnarson, I. Mandralis, G. Novati, P. Koumoutsakos, and J. O. Dabiri, Learning efficient navigation in vortical flow fields, Nat. Commun. 12, 7143 (2021).
  22. Z. Liu, D. Beckers, and J. D. Eldredge, Model-based reinforcement learning for control of strongly disturbed unsteady aerodynamic flows, AIAA J. 1 (2025).
  23. A. Mole, M. Weissenbacher, G. Rigas, and S. Laizet, Reinforcement learning increases wind farm power production by enabling closed-loop collaborative control, arXiv:2506.20554.
  24. In contrast to these terms, it is interesting to note that the use of “artificial intelligence” has not been prevalent in fluid dynamics.
  25. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2016).
  26. J. Watt, R. Borhani, and A. K. Katsaggelos, Machine Learning Refined: Foundations, Algorithms, and Applications, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020).
  27. S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz, Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022).
  28. S. L. Brunton, Applying machine learning to study fluid mechanics, Acta Mech. Sin. 37, 1718 (2021).
  29. P. Koumoutsakos, Machine learning and partial differential equations: Benchmark, simplify, and discover, Data-Centric Eng. 6, e29 (2025).
  30. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686 (2019).
  31. G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang, Physics-informed machine learning, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 422 (2021).
  32. Y. Patel, V. Mons, O. Marquet, and G. Rigas, Turbulence model augmented physics-informed neural networks for mean-flow reconstruction, Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, 034605 (2024).
  33. R. Sutton, The bitter lesson (2019).
  34. G. Berkooz, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley, The proper orthogonal decompsotion in the analysis of turbulent flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 25, 539 (1993).
  35. K. Taira, S. L. Brunton, S. Dawson, C. W. Rowley, T. Colonius, B. J. McKeon, O. T. Schmidt, S. Gordeyev, V. Theofilis, and L. S. Ukeiley, Modal analysis of fluid flows: An overview, AIAA J. 55, 4013 (2017).
  36. D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, No free lunch theorems for optimization, in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 1 (IEEE, 1997), pp. 67–82.
  37. K. Fukami, S. Goto, and K. Taira, Data-driven nonlinear turbulent flow scaling with Buckingham Pi variables, J. Fluid Mech. 984, R4 (2024).
  38. L. Guastoni, A. Göemes, A. Ianiro, S. Discetti, P. Schlatter, H. Azizpour, and R. Vinuesa, Convolutional-network models to predict wall-bounded turbulence from wall quantities, J. Fluid Mech. 928, A27 (2021).
  39. Z. Wang, D. Fan, X. Jiang, M. S. Triantafyllou, and G. E. Karniadakis, Deep reinforcement transfer learning of active control for bluff body flows at high Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech. 973, A32 (2023).
  40. Y. Guan, A. Chattopadhyay, A. Subel, and P. Hassanzadeh, Stable a posteriori LES of 2D turbulence using convolutional neural networks: Backscattering analysis and generalization to higher Re via transfer learning, J. Comput. Phys. 458, 111090 (2022).
  41. R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill et al., On the opportunities and risks of foundation models, A report by the Center for Research on Foundation Models at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (2021).
  42. Y. Choi, S. W. Cheung, Y. Kim, P.-H. Tsai, A. N. Diaz, I. Zanardi, S. W. Chung, D. M. Copeland, C. Kendrick, W. Anderson, T. Iliescu, and M. Heinkenschloss, Defining foundation models for computational science: A call for clarity and rigor, arXiv:2505.22904.
  43. J. N. Kutz and S. L. Brunton, Parsimony as the ultimate regularizer for physics-informed machine learning, Nonlin. Dyn. 107, 1801 (2022).
  44. S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz, Promising directions of machine learning for partial differential equations, Nat. Comput. Sci. 4, 483 (2024).
  45. B. R. Rich, Clarence Leonard (Kelly) Johnson 1910–1990: A Biographical Memoir (National Academies Press, 1995).
  46. S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932 (2016).
  47. S. H. Rudy, S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations, Sci. Adv. 3, e1602614 (2017).
  48. J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification, in Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, edited by S. A. Friedler and C. Wilson, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Vol. 81 (PMLR, 2018), pp. 77–91.
  49. B. Efron and T. Hastie, Computer Age Statistical Inference: Algorithms, Evidence, and Data Science, Institute of Mathematical Statistics Monographs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016).
  50. Y. Li, E. Perlman, M. Wan, Y. Yang, C. Meneveau, R. Burns, S. Chen, A. Szalay, and G. Eyink, A public turbulence database cluster and applications to study Lagrangian evolution of velocity increments in turbulence, J. Turbul. 9, N31 (2008).
  51. E. Perlman, R. Burns, Y. Li, and C. Meneveau, Data Exploration of Turbulence Simulations using a Database Cluster, Supercomputing SC07 (ACM Press, New York, NY, 2007).
  52. A. Towne, S. T. M. Dawson, G. A. Brès, A. Lozano-Durán, T. Saxton-Fox, A. Parthasarathy, A. R. Jones, H. Biler, C.-A. Yeh, H. D. Patel, and K. Taira, A database for reduced-complexity modeling of fluid flows, AIAA J. 61, 2867 (2023).
  53. W. T. Chung, B. Akoush, P. Sharma, A. Tamkin, K. S. Jung, J. H. Chen, J. Guo, D. Brouzet, M. Talei, B. Savard, A. Y. Poludnenko, and M. Ihme, Turbulence in focus: Benchmarking scaling behavior of 3D volumetric super-resolution with BLASTNet 2.0 data, Adv. Neural Inf. Proc. Syst. (NeurIPS) 36 (2023).
  54. M. D. Wilkinson, M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, J.-W. Boiten, L. B. da Silva Santos, P. E. Bourne, J. Bouwman, A. J. Brookes, T. Clark, M. Crosas, I. Dillo, O. Dumon, S. Edmunds, C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers, A. Gonzalez-Beltran et al., The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship, Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
  55. V. Anatharaman, J. Feldkamp, K. Fukami, and K. Taira, Image and video compression of fluid flow data, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 37, 61 (2023).
  56. Transparency (in training data) is what we want, Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 329 (2025).
  57. Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations (AIAA G-077-1998(2002)) (AIAA, Reston, VA, 1998).
  58. C. Tropea, A. L. Yarin, and J. F. Foss, Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics (Springer, Berlin, 2007).
  59. R. C. Smith, Uncertainty Quantification: Theory, Implementation, and Applications (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2014).
  60. N. McGreivy and A. Hakim, Weak baselines and reporting biases lead to overoptimism in machine learning for fluid-related partial differential equations, Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 1256 (2024).
  61. S. L. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, K. Manohar, A. Y. Aravkin, K. Morgansen, J. Klemisch, N. Goebel, J. Buttrick, J. Poskin, A. W. Blom-Schieber, T. Hogan, and D. McDonald, Data-driven aerospace engineering: Reframing the industry with machine learning, AIAA J. 59, 2820 (2021).
  62. J. Tran, K. Fukami, K. Inada, D. Umehara, Y. Ono, K. Ogawa, and K. Taira, Aerodynamics-guided machine learning for design optimization of electric vehicles, Commun. Eng. 3, 174 (2024).
  63. K. Fukami and K. Taira, Single-snapshot machine learning for super-resolution of turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 1001, A32 (2024).
  64. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. H. Chi, Q. V. Le, and D. Zhou, Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '22 (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2022).
  65. C. Bodnar, W. P. Bruinsma, A. Lucic, M. Stanley, A. Allen, J. Brandstetter, P. Garvan, M. Riechert, J. A. Weyn, H. Dong, J. K. Gupta, K. Thambiratnam, A. T. Archibald, C.-C. Wu, E. Heider, M. Welling, R. E. Turner, and P. Perdikaris, A foundation model for the earth system, Nature (London) 641, 1180 (2025).
  66. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2017).
  67. D. Jaksch, P. Givi, A. J. Daley, and T. Rung, Variational quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics, AIAA J. 61, 1885 (2023).
  68. M. P. Brenner and P. Koumoutsakos, Editorial: Machine learning and Physical Review Fluids: An editorial perspective, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 070001 (2021).
  69. B. McKeon, E. Lauga, B. Rubin, A. Ardekani, J. Chen, K. Duraisamy, S. Lele, J. Ling, G. Rigas, and P. Schmid, Editorial: Announcing methods: New experiments, algorithms, and theory (NEAT), Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, 110001 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 10, 090701– Published 16 September, 2025
  • Received 27 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation