Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Physics-Guided, Physics-Informed, and Physics-Encoded Neural Networks in Scientific Computing

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.07377 v2 pith:BPRD7MMQ submitted 2022-11-14 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords neuralnetworksscientificcomputinglearningresearchsolidapplications
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent breakthroughs in computing power have made it feasible to use machine learning and deep learning to advance scientific computing in many fields, including fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, etc. Neural networks, in particular, play a central role in this hybridization. Due to their intrinsic architecture, conventional neural networks cannot be successfully trained and scoped when data is sparse, which is the case in many scientific and engineering domains. Nonetheless, neural networks provide a solid foundation to respect physics-driven or knowledge-based constraints during training. Generally speaking, there are three distinct neural network frameworks to enforce the underlying physics: (i) physics-guided neural networks (PgNNs), (ii) physics-informed neural networks (PiNNs), and (iii) physics-encoded neural networks (PeNNs). These methods provide distinct advantages for accelerating the numerical modeling of complex multiscale multi-physics phenomena. In addition, the recent developments in neural operators (NOs) add another dimension to these new simulation paradigms, especially when the real-time prediction of complex multi-physics systems is required. All these models also come with their own unique drawbacks and limitations that call for further fundamental research. This study aims to present a review of the four neural network frameworks (i.e., PgNNs, PiNNs, PeNNs, and NOs) used in scientific computing research. The state-of-the-art architectures and their applications are reviewed, limitations are discussed, and future research opportunities in terms of improving algorithms, considering causalities, expanding applications, and coupling scientific and deep learning solvers are presented. This critical review provides researchers and engineers with a solid starting point to comprehend how to integrate different layers of physics into neural networks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cosmo-SPINN: Fuzzy Dark Matter Simulations with Physics-Informed Generative Networks

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Physics-informed generative U-Nets evolve and super-resolve fuzzy dark matter fields under Schrödinger–Poisson constraints with far less supervised data than pure data-driven baselines.

  2. Multidimensional Distributional Neural Network Output Demonstrated in Super-Resolution of Surface Wind Speed

    cs.LG 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multidimensional Gaussian loss with Fourier-represented covariances and an information-sharing regularizer lets a network emit closed-form correlated predictive distributions, demonstrated on wind-speed super-resolution.

  3. Learning thermodynamic master equations for open quantum systems

    quant-ph 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A data-driven model learns thermodynamically consistent master equations for open quantum systems, estimating Hamiltonians and couplings from synthetic two- and three-level data plus experimental two-level quantum dev...

  4. Physics-Encoded Inverse Modeling for Arctic Snow Depth Estimation

    cs.LG 2026-01 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    PhysE-Inv predicts a snow-depth proxy generated from the same ERA5 inputs the model sees, so its accuracy against real Arctic snow depth is unestablished.

Pith tools