CIDM-Foundation-A1-R1-R2-FIX1-Results / sources /neuraloperator /examples /models /plot_FNO_darcy.py
Download sources/neuraloperator/examples/models/plot_FNO_darcy.py from wuff-mann/CIDM-Foundation-A1-R1-R2-FIX1-Results: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 8.93 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/wuff-mann/CIDM-Foundation-A1-R1-R2-FIX1-Results/resolve/main/sources/neuraloperator/examples/models/plot_FNO_darcy.py
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/wuff-mann/CIDM-Foundation-A1-R1-R2-FIX1-Results/sources/neuraloperator/examples/models/plot_FNO_darcy.py
-
curl -L -o plot_FNO_darcy.py https://huggingface.co/datasets/wuff-mann/CIDM-Foundation-A1-R1-R2-FIX1-Results/resolve/main/sources/neuraloperator/examples/models/plot_FNO_darcy.py
8.93 kB
| """ | |
| Training an FNO on Darcy-Flow | |
| ============================= | |
| We train a Fourier Neural Operator (FNO) on our small :ref:`Darcy-Flow example <sphx_glr_auto_examples_data_plot_darcy_flow.py>`. | |
| This tutorial demonstrates the complete workflow of training a neural operator: | |
| 1. Loading and preprocessing the Darcy-Flow dataset | |
| 2. Creating an FNO model architecture | |
| 3. Setting up training components (optimizer, scheduler, losses) | |
| 4. Training the model | |
| 5. Evaluating predictions and zero-shot super-resolution | |
| Note that this dataset is much smaller than one we would use in practice. The small Darcy-flow is an example built to | |
| be trained on a CPU in a few seconds, whereas normally we would train on one or multiple GPUs. | |
| The FNO's key advantage is its resolution invariance - it can make predictions at different resolutions | |
| without retraining, which we will demonstrate in the zero-shot super-resolution section. | |
| """ | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Import dependencies | |
| # ------------------- | |
| # We import the necessary modules from `neuralop` for training a Fourier Neural Operator | |
| import torch | |
| import matplotlib.pyplot as plt | |
| import sys | |
| from neuralop.models import FNO | |
| from neuralop import Trainer | |
| from neuralop.training import AdamW | |
| from neuralop.data.datasets import load_darcy_flow_small | |
| from neuralop.utils import count_model_params | |
| from neuralop import LpLoss, H1Loss | |
| device = "cpu" | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Loading the Darcy-Flow dataset | |
| # ------------------------------ | |
| # We load the small Darcy-Flow dataset with multiple resolutions for training and testing. | |
| # The dataset contains permeability fields (input) and pressure fields (output). | |
| train_loader, test_loaders, data_processor = load_darcy_flow_small( | |
| n_train=1000, | |
| batch_size=64, | |
| n_tests=[100, 50], | |
| test_resolutions=[16, 32], | |
| test_batch_sizes=[32, 32], | |
| ) | |
| data_processor = data_processor.to(device) | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Creating the FNO model | |
| # ---------------------- | |
| model = FNO( | |
| n_modes=(8, 8), | |
| in_channels=1, | |
| out_channels=1, | |
| hidden_channels=24, | |
| projection_channel_ratio=2, | |
| ) | |
| model = model.to(device) | |
| # Count and display the number of parameters | |
| n_params = count_model_params(model) | |
| print(f"\nOur model has {n_params} parameters.") | |
| sys.stdout.flush() | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Creating the optimizer and scheduler | |
| # ------------------------------------ | |
| # We use AdamW optimizer with weight decay for regularization | |
| optimizer = AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=1e-2, weight_decay=1e-4) | |
| scheduler = torch.optim.lr_scheduler.CosineAnnealingLR(optimizer, T_max=30) | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Setting up loss functions | |
| # ------------------------- | |
| # We use H1 loss for training and L2 loss for evaluation | |
| # H1 loss is particularly good for PDE problems as it penalizes both function values and gradients | |
| l2loss = LpLoss(d=2, p=2) # L2 loss for function values | |
| h1loss = H1Loss(d=2) # H1 loss includes gradient information | |
| train_loss = h1loss | |
| eval_losses = {"h1": h1loss, "l2": l2loss} | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Training the model | |
| # --------------------- | |
| # We display the training configuration and then train the model | |
| print("\n### MODEL ###\n", model) | |
| print("\n### OPTIMIZER ###\n", optimizer) | |
| print("\n### SCHEDULER ###\n", scheduler) | |
| print("\n### LOSSES ###") | |
| print(f"\n * Train: {train_loss}") | |
| print(f"\n * Test: {eval_losses}") | |
| sys.stdout.flush() | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Creating the trainer | |
| # -------------------- | |
| # We create a Trainer object that handles the training loop, evaluation, and logging | |
| trainer = Trainer( | |
| model=model, | |
| n_epochs=15, | |
| device=device, | |
| data_processor=data_processor, | |
| wandb_log=False, # Disable Weights & Biases logging for this tutorial | |
| eval_interval=5, # Evaluate every 5 epochs | |
| use_distributed=False, # Single GPU/CPU training | |
| verbose=True, # Print training progress | |
| ) | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Training the model | |
| # ------------------ | |
| # We train the model on our Darcy-Flow dataset. The trainer will: | |
| # 1. Run the forward pass through the FNO | |
| # 2. Compute the H1 loss | |
| # 3. Backpropagate and update weights | |
| # 4. Evaluate on test data every 3 epochs | |
| trainer.train( | |
| train_loader=train_loader, | |
| test_loaders=test_loaders, | |
| optimizer=optimizer, | |
| scheduler=scheduler, | |
| regularizer=False, | |
| training_loss=train_loss, | |
| eval_losses=eval_losses, | |
| ) | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # .. _plot_preds : | |
| # Visualizing predictions | |
| # ------------------------ | |
| # Let's take a look at what our model's predicted outputs look like. | |
| # We wll compare the inputs, ground-truth outputs, and model predictions side by side. | |
| # | |
| # Note that in this example, we train on a very small resolution for | |
| # a very small number of epochs. In practice, we would train at a larger | |
| # resolution on many more samples. | |
| test_samples = test_loaders[16].dataset | |
| fig = plt.figure(figsize=(7, 7)) | |
| for index in range(3): | |
| data = test_samples[index] | |
| data = data_processor.preprocess(data, batched=False) | |
| # Input | |
| x = data["x"] | |
| # Ground-truth output | |
| y = data["y"] | |
| # Model prediction | |
| out = model(x.unsqueeze(0)) | |
| # Plot input | |
| ax = fig.add_subplot(3, 3, index * 3 + 1) | |
| ax.imshow(x[0], cmap="gray") | |
| if index == 0: | |
| ax.set_title("Input x") | |
| plt.xticks([], []) | |
| plt.yticks([], []) | |
| # Plot ground-truth output | |
| ax = fig.add_subplot(3, 3, index * 3 + 2) | |
| ax.imshow(y.squeeze()) | |
| if index == 0: | |
| ax.set_title("Ground-truth output") | |
| plt.xticks([], []) | |
| plt.yticks([], []) | |
| # Plot model prediction | |
| ax = fig.add_subplot(3, 3, index * 3 + 3) | |
| ax.imshow(out.squeeze().detach().numpy()) | |
| if index == 0: | |
| ax.set_title("Model prediction") | |
| plt.xticks([], []) | |
| plt.yticks([], []) | |
| fig.suptitle("FNO predictions on 16x16 Darcy-Flow data", y=0.98) | |
| plt.tight_layout() | |
| fig.show() | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # .. zero_shot : | |
| # Zero-shot super-resolution evaluation | |
| # ------------------------------------- | |
| # One of the key advantages of neural operators is their resolution invariance. | |
| # The FNO's invariance to the discretization of input data means we can natively | |
| # make predictions on higher-resolution inputs and get higher-resolution outputs | |
| # without retraining the model! | |
| test_samples = test_loaders[32].dataset | |
| fig = plt.figure(figsize=(7, 7)) | |
| for index in range(3): | |
| data = test_samples[index] | |
| data = data_processor.preprocess(data, batched=False) | |
| # Input at higher-resolution | |
| x = data["x"] | |
| # Ground-truth output at higher-resolution | |
| y = data["y"] | |
| # Model prediction at higher-resolution | |
| out = model(x.unsqueeze(0)) | |
| # Plot input at higher-resolution | |
| ax = fig.add_subplot(3, 3, index * 3 + 1) | |
| ax.imshow(x[0], cmap="gray") | |
| if index == 0: | |
| ax.set_title("Input at 32x32") | |
| plt.xticks([], []) | |
| plt.yticks([], []) | |
| # Plot ground-truth output at higher-resolution | |
| ax = fig.add_subplot(3, 3, index * 3 + 2) | |
| ax.imshow(y.squeeze()) | |
| if index == 0: | |
| ax.set_title("Ground-truth at 32x32") | |
| plt.xticks([], []) | |
| plt.yticks([], []) | |
| # Plot model prediction at higher-resolution | |
| ax = fig.add_subplot(3, 3, index * 3 + 3) | |
| ax.imshow(out.squeeze().detach().numpy()) | |
| if index == 0: | |
| ax.set_title("FNO prediction at 32x32") | |
| plt.xticks([], []) | |
| plt.yticks([], []) | |
| fig.suptitle("Zero-shot super-resolution: 16x16 → 32x32", y=0.98) | |
| plt.tight_layout() | |
| fig.show() | |
| # %% | |
| # .. raw:: html | |
| # | |
| # <div style="margin-top: 3em;"></div> | |
| # | |
| # Understanding zero-shot super-resolution | |
| # ---------------------------------------- | |
| # We only trained the model on data at a resolution of 16x16, and with no modifications | |
| # or special prompting, we were able to perform inference on higher-resolution input data | |
| # and get higher-resolution predictions! This is a powerful capability of neural operators. | |
| # | |
| # In practice, we often want to evaluate neural operators at multiple resolutions to track | |
| # a model's zero-shot super-resolution performance throughout training. That's why many of | |
| # our datasets, including the small Darcy-flow we showcased, are parameterized with a list | |
| # of `test_resolutions` to choose from. | |
| # | |
| # Note: These predictions may be noisier than we would expect for a model evaluated | |
| # at the same resolution at which it was trained. This is because the model hasn't seen | |
| # the higher-frequency patterns present in the 32x32 data during training. However, this | |
| # demonstrates the fundamental resolution invariance of neural operators. | |