This article explores how physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) can simulate shock wave generation, interactions, and entropy solutions. Using Burgers’ equation as a test case, the models accurately handle wave formation, collisions, and rarefaction without prior knowledge of origin points. The results highlight how deep learning can advance computational fluid dynamics by tackling problems once limited to traditional numerical methods.This article explores how physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) can simulate shock wave generation, interactions, and entropy solutions. Using Burgers’ equation as a test case, the models accurately handle wave formation, collisions, and rarefaction without prior knowledge of origin points. The results highlight how deep learning can advance computational fluid dynamics by tackling problems once limited to traditional numerical methods.

Shocks, Collisions, and Entropy—Neural Networks Handle It All

2025/09/20 19:00

Abstract and 1. Introduction

1.1. Introductory remarks

1.2. Basics of neural networks

1.3. About the entropy of direct PINN methods

1.4. Organization of the paper

  1. Non-diffusive neural network solver for one dimensional scalar HCLs

    2.1. One shock wave

    2.2. Arbitrary number of shock waves

    2.3. Shock wave generation

    2.4. Shock wave interaction

    2.5. Non-diffusive neural network solver for one dimensional systems of CLs

    2.6. Efficient initial wave decomposition

  2. Gradient descent algorithm and efficient implementation

    3.1. Classical gradient descent algorithm for HCLs

    3.2. Gradient descent and domain decomposition methods

  3. Numerics

    4.1. Practical implementations

    4.2. Basic tests and convergence for 1 and 2 shock wave problems

    4.3. Shock wave generation

    4.4. Shock-Shock interaction

    4.5. Entropy solution

    4.6. Domain decomposition

    4.7. Nonlinear systems

  4. Conclusion and References

4.3. Shock wave generation

In this section, we demonstrate the potential of our algorithms to handle shock wave generation, as described in Subsection 2.3. One of the strengths of the proposed algorithm

\

\ is that it does not require to know the initial position&time of birth, in order to accurately track the DLs. Recall that the principle is to assume that in a given (sub)domain and from a smooth function a shock wave will eventually be generated. Hence we decompose the corresponding (sub)domain in two subdomains and consider three neural networks: two neural networks will approximate the solution in each subdomain, and one neural network will approximate the DL. As long as the shock wave is not generated (say for t < t∗ ), the global solution remains smooth and the Rankine-Hugoniot condition is trivially satisfied (null jump); hence the DL for t < t∗ does not have any meaning.

\ Experiment 4. We again consider the inviscid Burgers’ equation, Ω × [0, T] = (−1, 2) × [0, 0.5] and the initial condition

\

\

\ Figure 7: Experiment 4. (Left) Loss function. (Right) Space-time solution

\ Figure 8: Experiment 4. (Left) Graph of the solution at T = 3/5. (Middle) Discontinuity lines. (Right) Flux jump along the DLs.

\

4.4. Shock-Shock interaction

In this subsection, we are proposing a test involving the interaction of two shock waves merging to generate a third shock wave. As explained in Subsection 2.4, in this case it is necessary re-decompose the full domain once the two shock waves have interacted.

\ \

\ \ \ Figure 9: Experiment 5. (Left) Space-time solution without shock interaction (artificial for t > t∗ = 0.45. (Right) Space-time solution with shock interaction.

\

4.5. Entropy solution

We propose here an experiment dedicated to the computation of the viscous shock profiles and rarefaction waves and illustrating the discussion from Subsection 1.3. In this example, a regularized non-entropic shock is shown to be “destabilized” into rarefaction wave by the direct PINN method.

\ \

\ \ \ \

\ \ \

\ \

:::info Authors:

(1) Emmanuel LORIN, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, K1S 5B6 and Centre de Recherches Mathematiques, Universit´e de Montr´eal, Montreal, Canada, H3T 1J4 (elorin@math.carleton.ca);

(2) Arian NOVRUZI, a Corresponding Author from Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada (novruzi@uottawa.ca).

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC by 4.0 Deed (Attribution 4.0 International) license.

:::

\

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 25 basis points, and Powell said this was a risk management cut

The Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 25 basis points, and Powell said this was a risk management cut

PANews reported on September 18th, according to the Securities Times, that at 2:00 AM Beijing time on September 18th, the Federal Reserve announced a 25 basis point interest rate cut, lowering the federal funds rate from 4.25%-4.50% to 4.00%-4.25%, in line with market expectations. The Fed's interest rate announcement triggered a sharp market reaction, with the three major US stock indices rising briefly before quickly plunging. The US dollar index plummeted, briefly hitting a new low since 2025, before rebounding sharply, turning a decline into an upward trend. The sharp market volatility was closely tied to the subsequent monetary policy press conference held by Federal Reserve Chairman Powell. He stated that the 50 basis point rate cut lacked broad support and that there was no need for a swift adjustment. Today's move could be viewed as a risk-management cut, suggesting the Fed will not enter a sustained cycle of rate cuts. Powell reiterated the Fed's unwavering commitment to maintaining its independence. Market participants are currently unaware of the risks to the Fed's independence. The latest published interest rate dot plot shows that the median expectation of Fed officials is to cut interest rates twice more this year (by 25 basis points each), one more than predicted in June this year. At the same time, Fed officials expect that after three rate cuts this year, there will be another 25 basis point cut in 2026 and 2027.
Share
PANews2025/09/18 06:54