Organizations: School of Computer Science, Peking University · Global Innovation Exchange, Tsinghua University · School of Electrical and Computer Science, University of Southampton
Fluid-solid interaction (FSI) problems are fundamental in many scientific and engineering applications, yet effectively capturing the highly nonlinear two-way interactions remains a significant challenge. Most existing deep learning methods are limited to simplified one-way FSI scenarios, often assuming rigid and static solid to reduce complexity. Even in two-way setups, prevailing approaches struggle to capture dynamic, heterogeneous interactions due to the lack of cross-domain awareness. In this paper, we introduce Fisale, a data-driven framework for handling complex two-way FSI problems. It is inspired by classical numerical methods, namely the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) method and the partitioned coupling algorithm. Fisale explicitly models the coupling interface as a distinct component and leverages multiscale latent ALE grids to provide unified, geometry-aware embeddings across domains. A partitioned coupling module (PCM) further decomposes the problem into structured substeps, enabling progressive modeling of nonlinear interdependencies. Compared to existing models, Fisale introduces a more flexible framework that iteratively handles complex dynamics of solid, fluid and their coupling interface on a unified representation, and enables scalable learning of complex two-way FSI behaviors. Experimentally, Fisale excels in three reality-related challenging FSI scenarios, covering 2D, 3D and various tasks. The code is available at \href{https://github.com/therontau0054/Fisale}.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Fluid-solid interaction scenarios. (a.1) and (a.2) depict flow-around-body scenarios; (b.1) and (b.2) focus on aerodynamic analysis of wings; (c) illustrates the periodic dynamics of a venous valve; (a.1) and (b.1) represent one-way FSI cases, while the others involve two-way FSI.
Figure 2: The overview of Fisale. (a) describes the overall structure of Fisale; (b) depicts the pipeline of the processor; (c) shows the pipeline of the latent ALE grid initialization.
Table 1: Summary of experiment dataset. #Mesh records the average size of discretized meshes. #Split is organized as the number of samples in training, evaluation and test sets.
Solid
Fluid
Interface
Mean ( ↓ )
Geo-FNO
0.0003
0.0387
0.0074
0.0155
GINO
0.0021
0.2536
0.0269
0.0942
LSM
0.0007
0.1951
0.0068
0.0675
CoDANO
0.0005
0.0703
0.0075
0.0261
LNO
0.0006
0.0244
0.0061
0.0104
Galerkin
0.0012
0.0507
0.0114
0.0211
Table 2: Performance on Structure Oscillation. Relative L2 is recorded. Second-best performance is underlined.
Figure 3: Local visualization of prediction results on solid displacement and fluid x -velocity. Red circle indicates the domain with most solid displacement and sharp fluid velocity change.
Relative L2 ( ↓ )
Geo-FNO
0.0730
LNO
0.0715
GNOT
0.0889
Transolver
0.0722
MGN
0.0742
AMG
0.0696
Table 3: Results of OOD test.
Solid
Fluid
Interface
Geometry
Stress
Pressure
Velocity ( x )
Geometry
Stress
Pressure
Geo-FNO
0.3687
3252.51
124.27
0.1304
0.3948
5471.54
110.35
LSM
0.4788
4166.96
145.03
0.1419
0.4635
6547.88
122.53
CoDANO
0.6843
4385.24
171.57
0.1713
0.7806
6843.06
143.65
Galerkin
0.3471
3226.86
109.52
0.1025
0.3213
5093.68
113.34
GNOT
0.3833
4207.17
100.59
0.1147
0.3679
5384.59
128.57
Table 4: Performance on Venous Valve. We record RMSE-all ( ↓ ), the average RMSE of the whole rollout trajectory and all samples. Results of other physical quantities are listed in Table 20 .
Figure 4: Visualization of ground truth and prediction results. The red circle indicates the distortion of solid shape, where Fisale can effectively handle.
Table 5: Performance on Flexible Wing task. Relative L2 is recorded. Second-best performance is underlined. (a) the relative L2 error of the prediction results; (b) the visualization of prediction errors.
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: The physical domain of venous valve simulation model.
Leaflet Thickness ( mm )
Inlet Blood Velocity ( m/s )
Valve Material
C1 ( MPa )
C2 ( MPa )
range(0.5,1.0,0.1)
range(0.1,0.6,0.1)
{0.01,0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2}
{0.001,0.005,0.01,0.02,0.05}
Appendix
Table 6: Parameter settings of venous valve simulation model.
Figure 6: The physical domain of flexible wing simulation model.
Thickness
Taper Ratio
Sweep Angle ( ∘ )
Free-stream Velocity ( m/s )
Attack Angle ( ∘ )
Wing Material
{10,12,14,16}
{0.5,0.6,0.7}
{10,25,40}
{50,75,100}
{-12,10,14,18}
Carbon Fibers Titanium Alloy Al-Zn-Mg Alloy
Appendix
Table 7: Parameter settings of flexible wing.
Material Name
Density ( kg/m3 )
Young’s Modulus ( MPa )
Poisson’s Ratio
Carbon Fibers
2.30×10−6
2.30×105
0.210
Alpha-Beta Titanium Alloy
4.43×10−6
1.13×105
0.342
Al-Zn-Mg Alloy
2.83×10−6
7.20×104
0.327
Appendix
Table 8: Material parameters of wings.
Datasets
Training Configuration
Model Configuration
Epochs
LR
Batch
Level ( L )
Pathway ( H )
Grid Shape ( M )
Channels ( D )
Structure Oscillation
100
1×10−3
50
2
2
[16,16][8,8]
[64,64]
Venous Valve
100
1×10−3
50
2
2
[16,16][8,8]
[64,64]
Flexible Wing
100
5×10−4
1
3
2
[5,5,5][4,4,4]
[96,128]
Appendix
Table 9: Training and Model Configurations of Fisale. The definition of batch size differs between autoregressive simulation task and other two tasks. For single-step prediction and steady-state inference tasks, the batch size refers to the number of samples in a batch. For autoregressive simulation, only one sample is processed during each forward and backward pass, and the batch size corresponds to the number of time steps in the sample. Since GPU memory usage varies across different models, the batch sizes of baseline models in the autoregressive simulation task are dynamically adjusted to avoid GPU memory overflow while maintaining performance.
Structure Oscillation
Venous Valve
Flexible Wing
Geo-FNO
1.60 M
1.60 M
5.22 M
GINO
1.72 M
/
5.17 M
LSM
2.23 M
2.23 M
/
CoDANO
1.83 M
1.83 M
5.01 M
LNO
1.62 M
/
5.34 M
Galerkin
1.74 M
1.74 M
3.18 M
Appendix
Table 10: Parameter count of baseline models and Fisale.
Solid ( ×10−3 )
Fluid ( ×10−2 )
Interface ( ×10−2 )
Geo-FNO
±0.01
±0.05
±0.01
GINO
±0.50
±2.02
±0.78
LSM
±0.01
±0.72
±0.02
CoDANO
±0.07
±0.05
±0.07
LNO
±0.03
±0.29
±0.12
Galerkin
±0.08
±0.03
±0.02
Appendix
Table 11: Standard deviations on Structure Ocsillation experiment.
Solid
Fluid
Interface
Geometry ( ×10−2 )
Stress ( ×100 )
Pressure ( ×100 )
Velocity ( x ) ( ×10−2 )
Geometry ( ×10−2 )
Stress ( ×100 )
Pressure ( ×100 )
Geo-FNO
±3.88
±319.62
±12.61
±1.69
±4.19
±483.77
±11.81
LSM
±4.26
±216.70
±13.08
±2.12
±4.56
±286.48
±11.13
CoDANO
±6.67
±552.81
±18.19
±2.87
±6.30
±603.29
±16.16
Galerkin
±0.71
±79.86
±4.24
±0.86
±1.02
±107.30
±2.62
GNOT
±1.66
±258.56
±8.69
±1.04
±1.89
±236.67
±3.87
Appendix
Table 12: Standard deviations on Venous Valve experiment.
Solid ( ×10−2 )
Fluid ( ×10−2 )
Interface ( ×10−2 )
Geo-FNO
±0.01
±0.04
±0.24
CoDANO
±0.18
±0.15
±0.27
LNO
±0.02
±0.02
±0.04
Galerkin
±0.09
±0.19
±0.25
GNOT
±0.02
±0.04
±0.01
Transolver
±0.01
±0.04
±0.03
Appendix
Table 13: Standard deviations on Flexible Wing experiment. Some baselines are not included due to severe degradation, where standard deviations are too unstable to provide meaningful reference.
Parameters (M)
Running Time (S)
GPU Memory (GiB)
Mean Relative L2 ( ↓ )
Geo-FNO
5.22
71.97
0.66
0.0524
GINO
5.17
223.74
22.95
0.4745
CoDANO
5.01
1167.47
17.48
0.1096
LNO
5.34
50.4
1.60
0.0235
Galerkin
3.18
129.40
4.15
0.0577
GNOT
4.64
246.42
13.04
0.0289
Appendix
Table 14: The efficiency comparison on Flexible Wing dataset with more than 35,000 mesh points for each sample in average. The Running Time is measured by the time to complete one epoch. Since the number of mesh points varies across samples, we report the peak GPU memory usage observed within a single epoch. Additionally, the recorded runtime includes the time spent on constructing graph edges. As a result, models like HOOD ( Grigorev et al., 2023 ) and AMG ( Li et al., 2025 ) , which involve multiple rounds of dynamic edge construction during iteration steps, become particularly time-consuming.
Solid
Fluid
Interface
Mean Relative L2 ( ↓ )
Decrease
Fisale
0.0042
0.0155
0.0211
0.0136
-
w/o explicit interface
0.0061
0.0212
0.0251
0.0175
28.68%
Appendix
Table 15: Ablation study of the explicit interface component.
Ordering
Solid
Fluid
Interface
Mean Relative L2 ( ↓ )
fluid-grid-solid-interface
0.0043
0.0155
0.0206
0.0135
grid-solid-fluid-interface
0.0042
0.0155
0.0206
0.0134
grid-solid-interface-fluid
0.0041
0.0157
0.0216
0.0138
grid-interface-solid-fluid
0.0041
0.0155
0.0212
0.0136
solid-fluid-interface-grid
0.0044
0.0161
0.0213
0.0139
solid-grid-fluid-interface
0.0042
0.0155
0.0211
0.0136
Appendix
Table 16: Ablation study of the update ordering within PCM.
Params (M)
Solid
Fluid
Interface
Mean Relative L2 ( ↓ )
Decrease
Fisale
4.88
0.0042
0.0155
0.0211
0.0136
-
Simpler Module
4.96
0.0045
0.0178
0.0223
0.0149
9.56%
Appendix
Table 17: Ablation study of replacing PCM with a simpler attention module.
M1/3
Params (M)
Solid
Fluid
Interface
Mean Relative L2 ( ↓ )
3
2.48
0.0047
0.0171
0.0226
0.0148
5
2.63
0.0047
0.0169
0.0224
0.0147
7
3.66
0.0044
0.0171
0.0221
0.0145
8
5.11
0.0045
0.0172
0.0223
0.0147
9
7.81
0.0046
0.0167
0.0219
0.0144
10
12.50
0.0049
0.0172
0.0227
0.0149
Appendix
Table 18: Scaling results of mesh resolution M with a single pathway.
H
M1/3
Channels
Params (M)
1
[5]
[128]
2.63
2
[4, 5]
[128, 96]
4.88
3
[4, 5, 6]
[128, 96, 64]
6.99
4
[3, 4, 5, 6]
[128, 128, 96, 64]
11.99
5
[3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
[128, 128, 96, 64, 64]
15.69
Appendix
Table 19: Scaling settings of pathways H .
Figure 7: Scaling results of pathways H .
Figure 8: Showcase comparison of structure oscillation task. The solid deformation and fluid velocity are shown.
Figure 9: Showcase comparison of structure oscillation task. The solid deformation and fluid pressure are shown.
Fluid
Interface
Geometry
Velocity ( y )
Velocity ( x )
Velocity ( y )
Geo-FNO
0.2850
0.0225
0.0780
0.0174
LSM
0.4022
0.0323
0.0825
0.0196
CoDANO
0.6203
0.0378
0.1042
0.0265
Galerkin
0.2811
0.0195
0.0658
0.0130
GNOT
0.2971
0.0182
0.0891
0.0157
Appendix
Table 20: Performance comparison on Venous Valve. Supplemetary results of Table 4 . We record RMSE-all, the average RMSE of the whole rollout trajectory and all samples. A smaller value indicates better performance.
Figure 10: Showcase comparison of venous valve task. The solid deformation and fluid pressure are shown.
Figure 11: Showcase comparison of venous valve task. The solid stress and fluid velocity are shown.
Figure 12: Showcase comparison of venous valve task. The wing deformation, wing stress and surface pressure are shown.
Figure 13: Attention pattern in last layer PCM modules of Fisale. The top row corresponds to the low-resolution latent ALE grid, and the bottom row corresponds to the high-resolution latent ALE grid. Regions with higher activation intensity are highlighted with red boxes. (a.1) and (a.2) represent the updating of the solid component; (b.1) and (b.2) represent the updating of the fluid component; (c.1) and (c.2) represent the interaction on the interface component.
We propose an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE)-consistent machine learning framework for long-term fluid-structure interaction (FSI) prediction on deforming unstructured meshes. Specifically, the fluid dynamics are modeled by a surrogate that combines a graph neural operator (GNO) with a vision Transformer (ViT) for spatiotemporal prediction, while a lightweight long short-term memory (LSTM) network predicts structural kinematics at the interface. The two surrogates are coupled through a standard partitioned procedure. Most importantly, kinematic compatibility at the moving interface is enforced via an ALE-consistent boundary-correction step that updates the fluid-side interface velocity with the predicted structural velocity at each coupling update, thereby improving near-interface accuracy and long-term rollout stability. To mitigate autoregressive error accumulation, a two-stage training strategy is adopted, consisting of single-step supervised pretraining followed by long-term autoregressive fine-tuning. The proposed framework is validated on the benchmark problem of a flexible beam vibration in the wake of a cylinder. Results demonstrate accurate phase-consistent predictions over long rollouts and robust generalization under inlet-profile variations in both interpolation and extrapolation settings. Systematic ablation studies further assess the respective contributions of the ViT module, ALE-consistent boundary correction, and long-term training to predictive accuracy and rollout robustness.
Shihang Zhao, Martín Saravia, Haokui Jiang +2
Institute for Ocean Engineering, Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518055, China · Centro de Investigación en Mecánica Teórica y Aplicada, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional - CONICET, 11 de Abril 461, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
Surrogate modeling of body-driven fluid flows where immersed moving boundaries couple structural dynamics to chaotic, unsteady fluid phenomena remains a fundamental challenge for both computational physics and machine learning. We present AeTHERON, a heterogeneous graph neural operator whose architecture directly mirrors the structure of the sharp-interface immersed boundary method (IBM): a dual-graph representation separating fluid and structural domains, coupled through sparse cross-attention that reflects the compact support of IBM interpolation stencils. This physics-informed inductive bias enables AeTHERON to learn nonlinear fluid-structure coupling in a shared high-dimensional latent space, with continuous sinusoidal time embeddings providing temporal generalization across lead times. We evaluate AeTHERON on direct numerical simulations of a flapping flexible caudal fin, a canonical FSI benchmark featuring leading-edge vortex formation, large membrane deformation, and chaotic wake shedding across a 4x5 parameter grid of membrane thickness (h* = 0.01-0.04) and Strouhal number (St = 0.30-0.50). As a proof-of-concept, we train on the first 150 timesteps of a representative case using a 70/30 train/validation split and evaluate on the fully unseen extrapolation window t=150-200. AeTHERON captures large-scale vortex topology and wake structure with qualitative fidelity, achieving a mean extrapolation MAE of 0.168 without retraining, with error peaking near flapping half-cycle transitions where flow reorganization is most rapid -- a physically interpretable pattern consistent with the nonlinear fluid-membrane coupling. Inference requires milliseconds per timestep on a single GPU versus hours for equivalent DNS computation. This is a continuously developing preprint; results and figures will be updated in subsequent versions.
Sushrut Kumar
Department of Mechanical Engineering Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218
This paper develops a data-driven framework for long-term prediction of fluid--structure interaction (FSI) dynamics, focusing on the flow-induced vibration (FIV) of a flexible plate. A stiffness-conditioned neural evolution operator jointly represents the Eulerian flow field and Lagrangian structural state. The plate is represented by 101 ordered structural tokens carrying nodal coordinates and velocities, with nondimensional bending stiffness as a global conditioning variable. Bidirectional cross-attention couples fluid and structural representations within a hybrid CNN-Transformer architecture. Trained with staged multi-step autoregressive rollouts and symmetry-reflected trajectories, a single operator captures three stiffness-dependent response regimes: deflected--flapping, deflected, and flapping. The predicted trajectories preserve the principal flow structures, structural oscillations, and dominant frequencies, while blind 1000-step rollouts remain bounded. The operator also interpolates to stiffness values excluded from training. To reduce sensitivity to under-resolved near-wall gradients in force reconstruction, we develop a differentiable aerodynamic-force module based on the derivative-moment transformation (DMT). Conventional wall-stress surface integrals are replaced by an enclosed 2D curve integral around the core vortex region, enabling accurate reconstruction of lift and drag. A Signed Distance Function (SDF) and smoothed Dirac-delta formulation make the integration fully differentiable while preserving gradient flow. The proposed framework provides an accurate and differentiable surrogate for stiffness-dependent FSI dynamics, enabling efficient parameter studies and future stiffness optimization for flow-energy-harvesting applications.
Chun-Jun Pu, Li-Wei Chen, Hai-Bo Huang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China · Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Systems Engineering, Beijing 100076, China