Mentoring

Mentees

I’ve had the privilege of working with several highly talented students on some really fun research projects! With their permission, here’s a list of some of my mentees and the projects we worked on together.

2025

• David De La Torre (MIT). We explored using stochastic rounding for lattice Boltzmann method fluid dynamics simulations using single precision floating point representations. You can read more about our project and results in this blog post
• Ali Backour (MIT). I co-supervised Ali with Julia Balla. We explored using equivariance as an inductive bias in neural networks for superresolution of Kolmogorov forced turbulence. I presented our results in April at the ERCOFTAC Data-driven Fluid Mechanics Workshop (slides) and at Chalmers University of Technology slides.
• Jeremiah Bailey (MIT). I also co-supervised Jeremiah’s summer internship with Julia Balla. We continued Ali’s work, but expanded our investigation to include 3D homogeneous isotropic turbulence, and 3D turbulent channel flow. More to come :)

2024

• Nikhila Kalia (University of Waterloo). During Nikhila’s Masters, we had fun trying out Kolmogorov-Arnold networks for turbulence modelling, running turbo-RANS (code) in order to tune the GEKO model for predicting flow separation, and implementing THANOS (thermal hydraulic analysis for numerical 1D simulation), our short 1D numpy CFD code for simulating compressible flows that never went anywhere but we loved naming.
• Sanya Jain (University of Waterloo). She is now an FIA (i.e., Formula 1) Motorsport Engineering Scholar, completing her Masters in Advanced Motorsport Engineering at Cranfield.

2023

• Sami Akkila (University of Manchester). During Sami’s summer internship, we used machine learning to correct discretization error for CFD simulations of Rayleigh–Bénard convection.

Mentorship Philosophy

Core Philosophy

My mentorship philosophy is grounded in the belief that effective mentorship requires creating supportive, inclusive environments where all students can thrive regardless of circumstances beyond their control. Whether in the classroom or research laboratory, I am committed to designing structures and practices that accommodate the diverse needs, backgrounds, and situations of the students I work with. This principle extends from my teaching philosophy into my research supervision, where I recognize that students face complex personal, professional, and academic pressures that require compassionate and flexible mentorship approaches.

Mentorship Approach and Relationship Building

My approach to effective mentorship centers on establishing strong working relationships and comfortable communication with mentees. I prioritize getting to know students in an informal, collegial manner to demonstrate that they can approach me openly with questions and concerns. This approach is particularly important for students who may hesitate to ask questions due to inexperience or intimidation.

Student Supervision Philosophy

My approach to supervising students prioritizes long-term development over short-term publication pressure. I believe graduate students will benefit most from focusing initially on understanding fundamental concepts in their field, conducting thorough literature reviews, and identifying meaningful research gaps before pursuing publications. Rushing graduate students through this foundational process purely for publication outcomes serves neither the student’s development nor the broader academic enterprise. I provide goal-based feedback and mentorship designed to prepare students for their chosen career paths. I prioritize exposing students to various research topics, training opportunities, and career options to support informed decision-making about their goals. Regular communication forms the backbone of my supervisory approach. Students meet with me weekly for individual check-ins to ensure they feel mentally healthy and supported.

Practical Implementation of Mentorship Expectations

Clear expectations and structured communication are essential for successful mentorship relationships. For each mentee, I develop a mentorship contract that establishes shared understanding from the project’s beginning. This document addresses several key components: Shared vision of success: We establish quantifiable success indicators that both mentor and mentee can work toward together, ensuring alignment on project outcomes and personal development goals.

1. Personal goals: Both parties articulate what they aim to gain from the mentorship relationship, creating mutual accountability and purpose.

2. Project timeline, scope, and success indicators: Clear boundaries around project duration, expected weekly working hours, and major milestones help students manage their time effectively, particularly important for undergraduate researchers who may be balancing coursework. We establish what sucess looks like in the project.

3. Support structures: I maintain an open-door policy while establishing expectations for resourcefulness. Students understand that I am readily available when they encounter difficulties, but they are also expected to explain their attempts at independent problem-solving first.

4. Communication protocols: We establish primary communication methods, meeting schedules, and reporting expectations. I require weekly check-in emails summarizing completed work, which helps students stay on track, keeps me informed, and creates useful records for project evaluation.

5. Work environment expectations: Given the computational nature of my research, I establish clear expectations about in-person versus remote work. While I offer flexibility, I encourage undergraduate students to work in the laboratory when possible to maximize their exposure to our collaborative research culture.

I developed this structured approach through my experiences supervising student researchers. The clarity provided by explicit expectations helps students feel confident in their roles while ensuring productive mentor-mentee relationships.

Research Group Leadership and Commitment to EDIA

Building diverse, inclusive research teams is one of the most impactful contributions I can make to the scholarly community. Evidence shows that gender and cultural diversity within research teams promotes innovation and enhances research quality. Through my experiences in various diverse laboratory settings, I have witnessed firsthand how different languages, cultures, and perspectives spark new research directions and collaborations. Conversely, homogeneous research environments tend to produce narrower ranges of ideas and approaches. My commitment to equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) in hiring practices stems from both evidence-based understanding and personal observation of unconscious bias in selection processes. I am committed to implementing transparent, merit-based hiring processes that also account for systemic barriers faced by underrepresented groups, following established best practices in equitable recruitment.