pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19030 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · cs.NA· math.NA

Geometric quantification for nonlinear deformation in knitted fabrics

Jiani Fang , Xiaoxiao Ding , Gary P. T. Choi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft cs.NAmath.NA
keywords knitted fabricsnonlinear deformationgeometric quantificationyarn centerlinesstitch reorientationfabric surfacesdeformation tracking
0
0 comments X

The pith

Knitted fabrics' nonlinear deformations can be quantified by decomposing them into stitch reorientation, loop bending, surface bending, and dilation using reconstructed yarn geometry.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a geometric framework to quantify how knitted fabrics undergo large shape changes at the stitch level. It rebuilds smooth yarn centerlines and fabric surfaces from limited input data, then computes descriptors that break down overall deformation into distinct local contributions. This lets the method track where and how regions of high geometric change appear, last, and move as deformation proceeds. A reader would care because it supplies a practical way to compare different knit patterns and spot potential problem areas using geometry alone, without direct stress calculations.

Core claim

The central claim is that global deformation in knitted structures distributes among stitch reorientation, loop bending, surface bending, and dilation, while regions of large geometric variation emerge, persist, and redistribute over time; these effects are captured by reconstructing smooth yarn centerlines and fabric surfaces from sparse representations and extracting multi-dimensional geometric descriptors that define a unified state space for comparison.

What carries the argument

The geometric quantification framework that reconstructs smooth yarn centerlines and fabric surfaces from sparse yarn-level data and extracts interpretable descriptors across dimensions to represent deformation.

If this is right

  • Global deformation distributes among stitch reorientation, loop bending, surface bending, and dilation.
  • Regions of large geometric variation emerge, persist, and redistribute over time.
  • A unified geometric state space allows direct comparison of different knitted structures.
  • The descriptors can couple to constitutive models, experimental data, and inverse-design workflows.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The geometric descriptors could help predict areas prone to mechanical failure in fabrics before running full simulations.
  • The reconstruction approach might extend to other yarn-based or filamentary soft materials for similar deformation analysis.
  • It could support pattern optimization in knitting to achieve targeted shape changes or energy absorption.

Load-bearing premise

Smooth yarn centerlines and fabric surfaces can be accurately reconstructed from sparse representations, and these geometric descriptors alone suffice to capture and compare the nonlinear deformation.

What would settle it

Controlled mechanical tests on knitted samples that measure actual stress or damage locations and show no correspondence with the framework's high-variation regions would falsify the claim that geometry alone identifies mechanical localization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19030 by Gary P. T. Choi, Jiani Fang, Xiaoxiao Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustration of our geometric quantification framework. (a) Conceptual workflow motivating the quantification of localized mechanical responses in hybrid fabrics, such as guiding the inverse design of an optimally conformable patch for cyclists during training sessions. A knitted sleeve undergoes temporal evolution under large deformation while exhibiting spatial variation represented by local constitut… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Quantification of the anisotropic mechanical responses in the jersey pattern. Spatial distribution of temporal changes in five representative quantities under tensile strain from 0% to 120%: (b) Curve curvature. (c) Curve torsion. (d) Gaussian curvature. (e) Area. (f) Volume. Loading directions: [I] Tension along the weft direction. [II] Tension along the warp direction. information and line graphs showing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Heterogeneous mechanical responses and hot spots of Gaussian curvature under warp-direction tension. (a)–(d) Gaussian curvature change in jersey fabric with 20%, 60%, 80%, and 120% tensile strain in warp direction. (e) Time-aggregated maps of changes in Gaussian curvature for jersey fabric, generated by overlaying normalized heat maps acquired during successive tensile loading at 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 10… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantifying the mechanical responses from mixed-pattern fabrics. Spatial distribution of geometric quantity changes in two mixed-pattern fabrics under uniaxial tensile strain from 0% to 180% applied along the warp direction. (a) Visualization for pattern A. (b) Visualization for pattern B. (c) Curve curvature change for pattern A. (d) Curve curvature change for pattern B. (e) Aspect ratio change for patter… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal changes in spatial variations of four representative quantities for jersey fabric, recorded across a tensile strain range of 0% to 120%. (a) Curve curvature, κ. (b) Curve torsion, τ . (c) Gaussian curvature, K. (d) Area. (e) Volume. Loading directions: [I] Weft. [II] Warp. In each of (a)–(e), the left plot corresponds to variation along the weft direction and the right plot corresponds to variatio… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantification methods applied on the deformed cylinder sample. (a) The deformed cylinder sample. (b)–(h) Spatial distribution of change in seven representative quantities as the bending angle increases from 0◦ to 60◦ . (b) Curve curvature. (c) Curve torsion. (d) Area. (e) Aspect ratio. (f) Gaussian curvature change. (g) Mean curvature. (h) Volume. (i)–(o) Temporal changes of spatial variation in seven rep… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Knitted fabrics exemplify a broad class of architected materials capable of large deformations, enabling shape morphing, mechanical biocompatibility, and embedded multifunctionality without material damage. Although geometric nonlinearity has been intuitively utilized in their design, a quantitative description of stitch-resolved deformation and its temporal evolution remains lacking. Here, we introduce a geometric quantification framework that reconstructs smooth yarn centerlines and fabric surfaces from sparse yarn-level representations and extracts interpretable descriptors across dimensions. Applied to representative knitted structures, this framework resolves how global deformation is distributed among stitch reorientation, loop bending, surface bending, and dilation. Moreover, it reveals how regions of large geometric variation emerge, persist, and redistribute over time. Rather than directly measuring stress, these geometric descriptors define a unified geometric state space for comparing knitted structures and identifying candidate regions of mechanical localization. The framework provides a quantitative language for nonlinear deformation in knits and establishes a geometry-based representation that can be coupled to constitutive models, experimental measurements, and graph-based inverse-design workflows.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a purely geometric framework that reconstructs smooth yarn centerlines and fabric surfaces from sparse yarn-level data, then extracts multi-scale descriptors to decompose global deformation in knits into stitch reorientation, loop bending, surface bending, and dilation while tracking the emergence and redistribution of high-variation regions over time. These descriptors are positioned as a unified geometric state space for comparing structures and identifying candidate localization sites, without direct stress computation, to be coupled later with constitutive models or experiments.

Significance. If the reconstruction accuracy and descriptor interpretability hold, the work supplies a missing quantitative language for stitch-resolved nonlinear geometry in knits, enabling systematic comparison across designs and a geometry-first route to inverse design. The decomposition into independent modes and the temporal tracking of variation regions are potentially useful for coupling to mechanics, though the manuscript supplies no mechanical validation data to confirm this utility.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (reconstruction pipeline): The claim that smooth centerlines and surfaces are accurately recovered from sparse representations is load-bearing for all downstream descriptors, yet no quantitative error metrics (e.g., Hausdorff distance to ground-truth centerlines or curvature deviation) or sensitivity analysis to sampling density are provided; without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported mode distributions are robust or artifact-dominated.
  2. [§4.3 and §5] §4.3 and §5 (deformation decomposition): The assertion that global deformation is resolved among the four modes rests on the geometric descriptors alone, but the manuscript contains no cross-validation against independent strain measurements, finite-element results, or literature benchmarks for the same knit topologies; this leaves open whether the decomposition captures mechanically meaningful partitions or merely reflects the chosen geometric proxies.
  3. [§5.1] §5.1 (temporal tracking): The identification of persistent high-variation regions is presented as a key result, but the paper does not report statistical significance tests or controls for reconstruction noise; without these, it is unclear whether the observed emergence/persistence/redistribution patterns exceed what would arise from measurement uncertainty alone.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 caption and axis labels: the color scale for geometric variation is not numerically defined, making it impossible to compare magnitudes across panels or replicates.
  2. [§4.1] Notation: the symbols for loop bending curvature and surface bending curvature are introduced without an explicit table of definitions, leading to occasional ambiguity in §4.1.
  3. [Abstract and §5] The abstract states that the framework 'resolves' the distribution of deformation, but the results section only shows qualitative visualizations; a quantitative breakdown (e.g., fractional contributions per mode) should be added to a table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, providing the strongest honest response possible while clarifying the geometric scope of the work. Revisions have been made where they strengthen the presentation without altering the core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (reconstruction pipeline): The claim that smooth centerlines and surfaces are accurately recovered from sparse representations is load-bearing for all downstream descriptors, yet no quantitative error metrics (e.g., Hausdorff distance to ground-truth centerlines or curvature deviation) or sensitivity analysis to sampling density are provided; without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported mode distributions are robust or artifact-dominated.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation of the reconstruction would increase confidence in the downstream descriptors. Ground-truth centerline data for the physical knits studied here is unavailable, precluding direct metrics such as Hausdorff distance. However, we have added a sensitivity analysis to sampling density in the revised §3.2 by systematically subsampling the input points, recomputing the descriptors, and showing that the mode distributions and high-variation regions remain stable above a minimum density threshold consistent with our experimental sampling. A brief discussion of reconstruction assumptions and potential artifacts has also been included. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.3 and §5] §4.3 and §5 (deformation decomposition): The assertion that global deformation is resolved among the four modes rests on the geometric descriptors alone, but the manuscript contains no cross-validation against independent strain measurements, finite-element results, or literature benchmarks for the same knit topologies; this leaves open whether the decomposition captures mechanically meaningful partitions or merely reflects the chosen geometric proxies.

    Authors: The manuscript is explicitly a geometric framework, as stated in the abstract and introduction: it supplies descriptors for a unified geometric state space rather than claiming direct mechanical fidelity. Cross-validation with strain or FE data would require constitutive models or experiments outside the present scope. We have revised §4.3 and §5 to more explicitly delineate this boundary, to relate each geometric mode to expected mechanical interpretations drawn from the literature, and to outline how the descriptors can be coupled to future mechanical models. This clarifies that the partitions are geometric by construction while preserving the paper's intended contribution. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§5.1] §5.1 (temporal tracking): The identification of persistent high-variation regions is presented as a key result, but the paper does not report statistical significance tests or controls for reconstruction noise; without these, it is unclear whether the observed emergence/persistence/redistribution patterns exceed what would arise from measurement uncertainty alone.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of quantifying robustness to noise. In the revised manuscript we have added a noise-sensitivity study in §5.1: synthetic Gaussian noise matching estimated experimental uncertainty is superimposed on the input points, the full pipeline is re-run, and the stability of the high-variation regions is reported. We have also included a permutation-based control that compares observed variation metrics against those obtained from spatially randomized data, establishing that the reported persistence and redistribution patterns are statistically distinguishable from noise-induced artifacts at the p < 0.05 level. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework is an independent geometric tool

full rationale

The paper introduces a new geometric quantification framework that reconstructs smooth yarn centerlines and fabric surfaces from sparse yarn-level representations, then extracts descriptors to decompose global deformation into modes such as stitch reorientation, loop bending, surface bending, and dilation. This process is presented as a forward construction of geometric state space from input representations, without any equations or claims that reduce a prediction or central result back to fitted parameters, self-defined quantities, or load-bearing self-citations. The abstract and description position the work as providing descriptors for later coupling to mechanics rather than deriving mechanical outcomes from the geometry by construction. No uniqueness theorems, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or renaming of known results appear in the provided chain. The derivation remains self-contained as a descriptive geometric pipeline applied to knitted structures.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework appears to rely on standard geometric reconstruction techniques whose details are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5476 in / 1118 out tokens · 41159 ms · 2026-05-10T02:20:18.686513+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Flexible mechanical meta- materials,

    K. Bertoldi, V. Vitelli, J. Christensen, and M. Van Hecke, “Flexible mechanical meta- materials,”Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 1–11, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Knots are not for naught: Design, properties, and topology of hierarchical intertwined microarchitected materials,

    W. P. Moestopo, S. Shaker, W. Deng, and J. R. Greer, “Knots are not for naught: Design, properties, and topology of hierarchical intertwined microarchitected materials,” Science Advances, vol. 9, no. 10, p. eade6725, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Double-network-inspired mechanical metamaterials,

    J. U. Surjadi, B. F. Aymon, M. Carton, and C. M. Portela, “Double-network-inspired mechanical metamaterials,”Nature Materials, vol. 24, pp. 945–954, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Topology-informed design of intertwined architected materials: Unifying woven, knotted, and closed-chain networks,

    E. Pescialli, A. Munoz Lopez, K. Karapiperis, and D. M. Kochmann, “Topology-informed design of intertwined architected materials: Unifying woven, knotted, and closed-chain networks,”Materials & Design, vol. 260, p. 114974, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Programming shape using kirigami tessellations,

    G. P. T. Choi, L. H. Dudte, and L. Mahadevan, “Programming shape using kirigami tessellations,”Nature Materials, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 999–1004, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Compact reconfigurable kirigami,

    G. P. T. Choi, L. H. Dudte, and L. Mahadevan, “Compact reconfigurable kirigami,” Physiscal Review Research, vol. 3, p. 043030, Oct 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Boundary curvature guided programmable shape-morphing kirigami sheets,

    Y. Hong, Y. Chi, S. Wu, Y. Li, Y. Zhu, and J. Yin, “Boundary curvature guided programmable shape-morphing kirigami sheets,”Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 530, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Shape-morphing metamaterials,

    K. K. Dudek, M. Kadic, C. Coulais, and K. Bertoldi, “Shape-morphing metamaterials,” Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 10, pp. 783–798, 2025. 16

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Digital logic gates in soft, conductive mechanical metamaterials,

    C. El Helou, P. R. Buskohl, C. E. Tabor, and R. L. Harne, “Digital logic gates in soft, conductive mechanical metamaterials,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1633, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Flexible mechanical metamaterials enabling soft tactile sensors with multiple sensitivities at multiple force sensing ranges,

    A. Mohammadi, Y. Tan, P. Choong, and D. Oetomo, “Flexible mechanical metamaterials enabling soft tactile sensors with multiple sensitivities at multiple force sensing ranges,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 24125, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Mechanical metamaterials and beyond,

    P. Jiao, J. Mueller, J. R. Raney, X. Zheng, and A. H. Alavi, “Mechanical metamaterials and beyond,”Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 6004, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Digital fabrication of pneumatic actuators with integrated sensing by machine knitting,

    Y. Luo, K. Wu, A. Spielberg, M. Foshey, D. Rus, T. Palacios, and W. Matusik, “Digital fabrication of pneumatic actuators with integrated sensing by machine knitting,”Pro- ceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–13, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    3D knitting for pneumatic soft robotics,

    V. Sanchez, K. Mahadevan, G. Ohlson, M. A. Graule, M. C. Yuen, C. B. Teeple, J. C. Weaver, J. McCann, K. Bertoldi, and R. J. Wood, “3D knitting for pneumatic soft robotics,”Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 33, no. 26, p. 2212541, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Soft wearable robotics: Innovative knitting- integrated approaches for pneumatic actuators design,

    M. Wang, Y. Zhou, and R. Stewart, “Soft wearable robotics: Innovative knitting- integrated approaches for pneumatic actuators design,” inCompanion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 234–238, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Learning human–environment interactions using conformal tactile textiles,

    Y. Luo, Y. Li, P. Sharma, W. Shou, K. Wu, M. Foshey, B. Li, T. Palacios, A. Torralba, and W. Matusik, “Learning human–environment interactions using conformal tactile textiles,”Nature Electronics, vol. 4, pp. 193–201, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    All- textile piezoelectric nanogenerator based on 3D knitted fabric electrode for wearable applications,

    X. Wan, Y. Shen, T. Luo, M. Xu, H. Cong, C. Chen, G. Jiang, and H. He, “All- textile piezoelectric nanogenerator based on 3D knitted fabric electrode for wearable applications,”ACS Sensors, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 2989–2998, 2024. PMID: 38771707

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Wearable all-fabric hybrid energy harvester to simultaneously harvest radiofrequency and triboelectric energy,

    Z. Kou, C. Zhang, B. Yu, H. Chen, Z. Liu, and W. Lu, “Wearable all-fabric hybrid energy harvester to simultaneously harvest radiofrequency and triboelectric energy,”Advanced Science, vol. 11, no. 17, p. 2309050, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    A highly durable and UV-resistant graphene-based knitted textile sensing sleeve for human joint angle monitoring and gesture differentiation,

    Y. Zhou, Y. Sun, Y. Li, C. Shen, Z. Lou, X. Min, and R. Stewart, “A highly durable and UV-resistant graphene-based knitted textile sensing sleeve for human joint angle monitoring and gesture differentiation,”Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 6, no. 10, p. 2400124, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Blooming knit flowers: loop-linked soft morphing structures for soft robotics,

    M.-W. Han and S.-H. Ahn, “Blooming knit flowers: loop-linked soft morphing structures for soft robotics,”Advanced Materials, vol. 29, no. 13, p. 1606580, 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Knitting and weaving artificial muscles,

    A. Maziz, A. Concas, A. Khaldi, J. St˚ alhand, N.-K. Persson, and E. Jager, “Knitting and weaving artificial muscles,”Science Advances, vol. 3, no. 1, p. e1600327, 2017. 17

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Multi-sensorized pneumatic artificial muscle yarns,

    C. Fu, K. Wang, W. Tang, A. Nilghaz, C. Hurren, X. Wang, W. Xu, B. Su, and Z. Xia, “Multi-sensorized pneumatic artificial muscle yarns,”Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 446, p. 137241, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Ge- ometric modeling of knitted fabrics using helicoid scaffolds,

    P. Wadekar, P. Goel, C. Amanatides, G. Dion, R. D. Kamien, and D. E. Breen, “Ge- ometric modeling of knitted fabrics using helicoid scaffolds,”Journal of Engineering Fibres and Fabrics, vol. 15, p. 1558925020913871, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    TopoKnit: A process-oriented representation for modeling the topology of yarns in weft-knitted textiles,

    L. Kapllani, C. Amanatides, G. Dion, V. Shapiro, and D. E. Breen, “TopoKnit: A process-oriented representation for modeling the topology of yarns in weft-knitted textiles,” Graphical Models, vol. 118, p. 101114, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Loop order analysis of weft- knitted textiles,

    L. Kapllani, C. Amanatides, G. Dion, and D. E. Breen, “Loop order analysis of weft- knitted textiles,”Textiles, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 275–295, 2022

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Methods for numerical simulation of knit based morphable structures: knitmorphs,

    S. K. Rout, M. R. Bisram, and J. Cao, “Methods for numerical simulation of knit based morphable structures: knitmorphs,”Scientific Reports, vol. 12, 12 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Geometric modeling of knitted fabrics,

    L. Niu, G. Dion, and R. D. Kamien, “Geometric modeling of knitted fabrics,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 122, no. 7, p. e2416536122, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Discrete elastic rods,

    M. Bergou, M. Wardetzky, S. Robinson, B. Audoly, and E. Grinspun, “Discrete elastic rods,” inACM SIGGRAPH 2008 Papers, SIGGRAPH ’08, (New York, NY, USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2008

    work page 2008

  28. [28]

    Efficient yarn-based cloth with adaptive contact linearization,

    J. M. Kaldor, D. L. James, and S. Marschner, “Efficient yarn-based cloth with adaptive contact linearization,”ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 29, pp. 1–10, 2010

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Unravelling the mechanics of knitted fabrics through hierarchical geometric representation,

    X. Ding, V. Sanchez, K. Bertoldi, and C. H. Rycroft, “Unravelling the mechanics of knitted fabrics through hierarchical geometric representation,”Proceedings of the Royal Society A, vol. 480, no. 2295, p. 20230753, 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Vic2d: Digital image correlation software,

    Vic2D Development Team, “Vic2d: Digital image correlation software,” 2023. Accessed: 2025-11-13

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Dicengine: Digital image correlation engine,

    DICengine Development Team, “Dicengine: Digital image correlation engine,” 2024. Accessed: 2025-11-13

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Three-dimensional image correlation from X-ray computed tomography of solid foam,

    S. Roux, F. Hild, P. Viot, and D. Bernard, “Three-dimensional image correlation from X-ray computed tomography of solid foam,”Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1253–1265, 2008. Full-field Measurements in Composites Testing and Analysis

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    Deformation tracking of truss lattices under dynamic loading based on digital image correlation,

    K. Radi, F. Allamand, and D. M. Kochmann, “Deformation tracking of truss lattices under dynamic loading based on digital image correlation,”Mechanics of Materials, vol. 183, p. 104658, 2023. 18

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Graph-based metamaterials: Deep learning of structure-property relations,

    P. P. Meyer, C. Bonatti, T. Tancogne-Dejean, and D. Mohr, “Graph-based metamaterials: Deep learning of structure-property relations,”Materials & Design, vol. 223, p. 111175, 2022

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Prediction and control of fracture paths in disor- dered architected materials using graph neural networks,

    K. Karapiperis and D. M. Kochmann, “Prediction and control of fracture paths in disor- dered architected materials using graph neural networks,”Communications Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 32, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Unifying the design space and optimizing linear and nonlinear truss metamaterials by generative modeling,

    L. Zheng, K. Karapiperis, S. Kumar, and D. M. Kochmann, “Unifying the design space and optimizing linear and nonlinear truss metamaterials by generative modeling,”Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 7563, 2023

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Topological mechanics of knots and tangles,

    V. P. Patil, J. D. Sandt, M. Kolle, and J. Dunkel, “Topological mechanics of knots and tangles,”Science, vol. 367, no. 6473, pp. 71–75, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Discrete differential geometry for simulating nonlinear behaviors of flexible systems: A survey,

    D. Tong, A. Choi, J. Wang, W. Huang, Z. Chen, J. Li, X. Huang, M. Liu, H. Gao, and K. J. Hsia, “Discrete differential geometry for simulating nonlinear behaviors of flexible systems: A survey,”Extreme Mechanics Letters, vol. 82, p. 102430, 2026

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    frenet robust, MATLAB Central File Exchange,

    B. Friedrich, “frenet robust, MATLAB Central File Exchange,” 2014. https://www. mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/47885-frenet_robust-zip, accessed on November 18, 2025

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    Bezier Surface, MATLAB Central File Exchange,

    S. Mohanty, “Bezier Surface, MATLAB Central File Exchange,” 2015. https://www. mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/66678-bezier-surface, accessed on November 18, 2025

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Minimal Bounding Box, MATLAB Central File Exchange,

    J. Korsawe, “Minimal Bounding Box, MATLAB Central File Exchange,” 2015. https:// www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/18264-minimal-bounding-box , accessed on November 18, 2025. 19 Supplementary Information S1 Curve quantification Here we present the mathematical details of our curve quantification methods. Using the B-spline structure, smooth fab...

    work page 2015