Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42562840›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

AI models of unstable flow exhibit hallucination.

Ramdhan Wibawa, Birendra Jha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ramdhan WibawaMork Family Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Southern California, 925 Bloom Walk, Los Angeles, 90089, CA, USA.
Birendra JhaMork Family Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Southern California, 925 Bloom Walk, Los Angeles, 90089, CA, USA. bjha@usc.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3855-1441

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We identify hallucination in AI models of fluid dynamics using the canonical problem of hydrodynamically unstable transport known as viscous fingering. AI-based modeling of flow with instabilities remains challenging because rapidly evolving, multiscale fingering patterns are difficult to resolve accurately. We define hallucination in physics-based AI as a prediction that is visually coherent yet violates governing physical laws, analogous to hallucinations in large language models, and we identify solutions of this kind that appear visually realistic yet are physically implausible. These hallucinations manifest as spurious interface structures and nonphysical concentration patterns inconsistent with expected transport behavior. We observe that the presence and type of hallucination correlate with the spectral bias of AI models. Guided by this insight, we propose DeepFingers, a hybrid framework that combines the Fourier Neural Operator and Deep Operator Network to promote balanced learning across spatial modes and accurately predict the spatiotemporal evolution of viscous fingering. By conditioning on both time and viscosity contrast, DeepFingers learns mappings between successive concentration fields across regimes. The framework accurately captures tip splitting, finger merging, and channel formation while preserving global metrics of mixing. The results highlight the need for further investigation into the limitations of AI models for physical systems.

Indexed as

AI hallucinationFluid dynamicsNeural OperatorSpectral biasViscous fingering

Identifiers

PMID42562840
PMCPMC13448709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.