Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Solving Multi-Group Neutron Diffusion Eigenvalue Problem with Decoupling Residual Loss Function

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Neural networks with a decoupling residual loss solve two-group neutron diffusion eigenvalue problems in 1D, 2D, and 3D without prior data.

desk verdict Incremental but real: clean loss-function adaptation of source iteration for multi-group eigenvalue PINNs, credible in 1D/2D, overreaching in 3D, and short on reproducibility details. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15693 v1 pith:RRQJUBWF submitted 2024-11-24 math.NA cs.NA

Shupei Yu , Qiaolin He , Shiquan Zhang , Qihong Yang , Yu Yang , Helin Gong This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N9982D7568T0765N25
keywords multi-groupneutrondiffusioneigenvalueproblemphysics-informedneuralnetworksdecouplingresiduallossdirectiterativeRayleighquotientnuclearreactorbenchmarkseffectivemultiplicationfactor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that multi-group neutron diffusion eigenvalue problems, which determine the effective multiplication factor $k_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of a reactor core, can be solved by neural networks using only the equations, boundary conditions, and interface conditions, with no prior flux data. Two new residual loss functions are proposed: a decoupling loss that turns each energy-group equation into a single-unknown PDE residual and a direct iterative loss that keeps the two-group coupling while freezing one group from the previous iteration. On the Ringhals, TWIGL, and IAEA benchmarks, the reported $k_{\mathrm{eff}}$ relative errors range from about $10^{-4}$ to $6\times10^{-3}$, and two-dimensional flux errors are mostly below ten percent. The three-dimensional IAEA thermal flux error reaches 26 percent, which the paper acknowledges as not yet satisfactory. The central practical claim is that this is the first neural-network solution of real three-dimensional multi-group reactor problems without observational data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decoupling residual loss function (Eq. 23): one residual per energy group, in which the current-iterate flux of that group appears on the left while all cross-group terms come from the previous iterate, making each residual a single-unknown PDE. The direct iterative loss (Eq. 25) is a second variant that keeps the two-group coupling inside the current step but freezes $\phi_1$ from the previous step in the thermal-group equation, which is needed when $\nu\Sigma_{f,1}=0$. Around this, the algorithm alternates three operations: gradient descent on the total loss, power normalization of the flux, and a Rayleigh-quotient update of $\tilde\lambda = 1/k_{\mathrm{eff}} + \sigma$. The network outputs one flux block per material region, and interface losses enforce flux continuity and $D$-weighted normal-current continuity.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a two-group benchmark with a known reference solution in which the second eigenvalue is close to the fundamental; if the iteration reports a $k_{\mathrm{eff}}$ that matches the second mode or a flux with sign changes, the central claim fails. A direct test is the 3D IAEA problem: if the thermal-flux $L^2$ relative error does not fall substantially below 26 percent when the number of residual and interface points is increased, then the claim that the method solves three-dimensional multi-group problems would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the two-group neutron diffusion eigenvalue problem—the coupled system whose largest eigenvalue is the reactor's effective multiplication factor—can be solved by a neural network without any prior data. The discovery is a way of organizing the residual loss so that each energy group is solved as if it were a single-unknown PDE: in the decoupling residual loss, the current iteration's flux appears only in its own group's equation, while all cross-group fluxes are taken from the previous iteration; in the direct iterative loss, the coupling is kept on the left-hand side but the thermal-group source uses the previous fast-group flux, which matters when the fast fission cross-section vanishes. Around either loss, the algorithm alternates gradient updates, power normalization of the flux, and a Rayleigh-quotient update of the eigenvalue. The paper reports that this scheme reaches $k_{\mathrm{eff}}$ errors around $10^{-4}$ to $6\times10^{-3}$ on one-, two-, and three-dimensional benchmarks, with interface conditions essential: without them the problem becomes unsolvable in the tested cases.

Load-bearing premise

The entire method rests on the alternating training loop—gradient updates on the residual loss, a Rayleigh-quotient refresh of the eigenvalue, and power normalization—actually converging to the fundamental mode; the paper supplies no convergence analysis and no safeguard against locking onto a spurious mode.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-group neutron diffusion eigenvalue problems can be solved by neural networks using only equation, boundary, and interface information, with no prior flux data.
  • The decoupling and direct iterative losses outperform the previous inverse-power-method residual, especially when the fast-group fission cross-section vanishes as in the IAEA benchmark.
  • Enforcing interface conditions is necessary: removing them makes the tested problems unsolvable by the proposed network.
  • Increasing the number of residual and interface training points improves accuracy and convergence speed, though a fixed network size limits the attainable precision.
  • In three dimensions the method captures the main features of both TWIGL and IAEA, but the 26 percent thermal-flux error on IAEA shows that three-dimensional accuracy is not yet satisfactory.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the decoupling loss is a neural translation of the traditional source-iteration sweep, so if the underlying fixed-point iteration were shown to converge, the method would inherit a classical convergence theory rather than resting on heuristics.
  • Beyond the paper: the shift parameter $\sigma$ plays a role analogous to a Wielandt shift in classical eigensolvers; choosing it near the inverse of the target eigenvalue could accelerate convergence in harder geometries, a testable extension.
  • Beyond the paper: the per-material output block architecture will struggle as the number of regions grows; combining the residual loss with a partition-of-unity or level-set network could remove the need for explicit interface training points.
  • Beyond the paper: the same decoupling recipe extends naturally to $G>2$ groups by ordering the groups so that only lower-to-higher scattering appears on the right-hand side, yielding a general neural source iteration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two new physics-informed residual loss functions—a decoupling loss (23) and a direct iterative loss (25)—for solving multi-group neutron diffusion eigenvalue problems with neural networks, following the source-iteration idea of classical reactor physics. The neural network is a residual network with per-region outputs, trained on residual, boundary, and interface point sets, with the eigenvalue updated via a Rayleigh quotient (30) and a power normalization step (Algorithm 1). Numerical experiments are presented for 1D (Ringhals-4), 2D (TWIGL, 3-region TWIGL, IAEA), and 3D (TWIGL, IAEA) benchmarks and compared against FreeFEM++ references. The reported eigenvalue relative errors are on the order of 1e-4 to 6e-3 and most 2D flux relative L2 errors are below about 5%, but 3D flux errors are considerably larger (e.g., IAEA-3D thermal flux L2 error of 2.6e-1). The central claim is the first neural-network solution of multi-group eigenvalue problems without prior data.

Significance. If correct, the paper's contribution is a practical way to extend physics-informed neural networks from single-group to multi-group eigenvalue problems, including discontinuous interface problems. A strength is that the reference solutions are used only for evaluation, not training, so the reported accuracy is not circular. The sampling-rate and interface-condition ablation studies are informative for practitioners. However, the contribution is weakened by the lack of any convergence analysis for the proposed fixed-point iteration, by the unexamined use of the Rayleigh quotient for a non-self-adjoint problem, and by the large 3D errors, which conflict with the abstract's claim to 'solve' 3D problems. These issues make the central claim currently incompletely supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Algorithm 1 and Eqs. (22)-(25), (30)] The fixed-point iteration in Algorithm 1 is unanalyzed. The residual losses freeze the previous iterate phi^{NN(i-1)} as a known source while minimizing a squared residual for a single unknown, and then the eigenvalue is updated using the current eigenfunction in the Rayleigh quotient (30). No convergence proof, contraction estimate, or safety check is given to show that a fixed point of this iteration solves the original coupled eigenvalue problem (1) and selects the smallest eigenvalue (keff). The large 3D errors in Table 9 (IAEA-3D ER,2(phi2) = 2.6125e-01) are consistent with the iteration failing to reach the fixed point. Because the abstract claims the method 'solves' multi-group problems, this missing guarantee is load-bearing. I ask for either a convergence argument, a practical stopping rule based on the original coupled residual, or a scoped claim that does not assert 3D solving.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (30)] The Rayleigh quotient in (30) is used without discussing its validity for the non-self-adjoint generalized eigenvalue problem. The two-group neutron diffusion operator is not symmetric when scattering and material discontinuities are present, so the quotient <L phi, phi>/<F phi, phi> does not generally provide the correct eigenvalue for the intended right eigenpair unless the operator is self-adjoint or a left-eigenfunction weighting is used. The paper should justify that the iteration's fixed point has the quotient equal to 1/keff + sigma, or replace the update by a more robust estimator (e.g., a fission-source normalization), and demonstrate numerically that the estimated eigenvalue converges to the FreeFEM value. Without this, the eigenvalue results are not fully supported.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5, Table 9] The abstract claims that the new loss functions solve one-, two-, and three-dimensional multi-group problems without prior data. The reported 3D results do not support this: Table 9 lists ER,2(phi2) = 2.6125e-01 for IAEA-3D, and Section 5 explicitly states that 'the accuracy achieved by the neural network is not yet satisfactory.' Please either present the 3D experiments as preliminary, relax the abstract to 1D/2D (or to 'with moderate 3D accuracy'), or add acceptance criteria that the 3D results meet.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Tables 3, 5, 7] Several entries in Tables 3, 5, and 7 appear as concatenated repeated values (e.g., '1.0351e-041.0351e-041.0351e-04' in Table 3). Please fix the formatting so that each entry appears once.
  2. [Section 4.4] The phrase 'significant infinite error in phi2 in the IAEA problem' is confusing; Table 9 reports L2 errors, so please clarify whether L-infinity error is meant and add that metric if so.
  3. [Eq. (30)] The denominator notation 'MP' is not defined; it should be a sum over the M residual points.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Eq. (2)] The symbol n is used both for the number of unknown solution components and for the outward normal direction; please use distinct symbols to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Reproducibility] No random seeds, repeated runs, or code/data are reported; since neural-network training is stochastic, please provide statistics over several runs or at least seeds and code for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method solves a forward multi-group eigenvalue problem from the PDE and boundary/interface residuals, with FreeFEM reference solutions used only for post-hoc evaluation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the proposed Decoupling loss (Eq. 23) and Direct Iterative loss (Eq. 25) allow neural networks to solve two-group neutron diffusion eigenvalue problems without prior data. The training objective is built entirely from the governing equation (Eq. 21), boundary conditions (Eqs. 26a-26c), and interface conditions (Eqs. 27-28), all of which are known physical inputs rather than fitted outputs. The eigenvalue is updated through the Rayleigh quotient (Eq. 30) evaluated on the current network approximation; this is the standard inverse-power-method fixed-point structure, not a circular reduction, because the true eigenpair is the fixed point of this iteration and is not used as a training target. The FreeFEM++ reference solutions enter only through the error criteria in Eqs. (31)-(32) for evaluation, so no reference data are fitted or renamed as predictions. The only self-citation of note is the comparison with the LossIPM from the authors' earlier PC-GIPMNN work (Ref. [29]) and the statement that the n=1 case was already treated there; this is contextual and comparative, not load-bearing for the new loss functions. The paper's admitted limitation that 3D accuracy, particularly the IAEA thermal flux L2 error of 2.6125e-01, is 'not yet satisfactory' is a convergence/accuracy concern, not circularity: there is no equation in the paper that reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or to a self-cited uniqueness theorem. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the benchmark problems, and no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the two-group diffusion model and the iterative NN training; free parameters are the shift sigma, unstated loss weights, and architecture choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • shift sigma in Decoupling and Direct Iterative losses = 0 or 1 (hand chosen)
    Added to loss functions (22)-(25) to improve convergence; the paper tests sigma=0 and sigma=1 and reports better results with sigma=1 for some cases.
  • loss weights alpha_Res, alpha_Bou, alpha_Int0, alpha_Int1 = not reported
    In Eq. (29) the total loss is a weighted sum, but the paper never states the chosen weights; these directly shape the training objective.
  • neural network architecture hyperparameters (blocks, neurons) = 2-6 blocks, 20-80 neurons
    Chosen per problem without a stated selection procedure; they affect accuracy but are not fitted to reference data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-group neutron diffusion eigenvalue equations (1) with given cross-sections and boundary conditions are an accurate model of the benchmark critical reactors.
    The whole method solves these equations and compares against FreeFEM solutions of the same equations; errors are measured against a finite element discretization, not against physical measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper The Rayleigh quotient (Eq. 30) provides a valid estimate of the smallest eigenvalue of the multi-group system during iteration.
    Used in Algorithm 1 to update k_eff; no analysis is given for the non-symmetric two-group operator.
  • ad hoc to paper The soft penalty interface losses (27)-(28) allow a single network with per-region outputs to represent solutions with discontinuous derivatives at material interfaces.
    The network architecture outputs p region solutions and the interface conditions are added as loss terms, not hard constraints; the paper shows the solver fails without them.
  • standard math The power normalization step in Algorithm 1 preserves the eigenvector and does not bias the fixed point.
    Scaling an eigenfunction does not change the eigenvalue; this is standard in power iteration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solving Multi-Group Neutron Diffusion Eigenvalue Problem with Decoupling Residual Loss Function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RRQJUBWF

@misc{pith2026241115693,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solving Multi-Group Neutron Diffusion Eigenvalue Problem with Decoupling Residual Loss Function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RRQJUBWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15693}
}
read the original abstract

In the midst of the neural network's success in solving partial differential equations, tackling eigenvalue problems using neural networks remains a challenging task. However, the Physics Constrained-General Inverse Power Method Neural Network (PC-GIPMNN) approach was proposed and successfully applied to solve the single-group critical problems in reactor physics. This paper aims to solve critical problems in multi-group scenarios and in more complex geometries. Hence, inspired by the merits of traditional source iterative method, which can overcome the ill-condition of the right side of the equations effectively and solve the multi-group problem effectively, we propose two residual loss function called Decoupling Residual loss function and Direct Iterative loss function. Our loss function can deal with multi-group eigenvalue problem, and also single-group eigenvalue problem. Using the new residual loss functions, our study solves one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and three-dimensional multi-group problems in nuclear reactor physics without prior data. In numerical experiments, our approach demonstrates superior generalization capabilities compared to previous work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15693 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the problem physical meaning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Neural network to solve PDE flow chart. layer, as shown in (9). For clarity, we have put a schematic diagram of the algorithm in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: the algorithm flowchart for traditional methods of solving multi-group neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Computational domain of 1-D Swedish Ringhals-4 pressurized water reactor, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of 1-D Swedish Ringhals-4 pressurized water reactor problem: Left: reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Computational domain of TWIGL problem. Grey and blue region denote seed and blanket [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of 2-D TWIGL problem: Left: reference solution. Mid: neural network solution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2-D TWIGL problem: relative error of neural network solution at different sample rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 2-D TWIGL problem: the first row shows relative error of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Experiment results of different proportion of interface points used in training process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The relative error of keff under different proportion of interface points used in training process, where blue represents 2-D TWIGL problem and yellow represents 2-D IAEA problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-dimensional IAEA problem calculation domain. Different colors represent different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results of 2-D IAEA problem: Left: reference solution. Mid: neural network solution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: 2-D IAEA problem: relative error of neural network solution at different sample rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: 2-D IAEA: the first row shows relative error of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Computational domain of TWIGL 3-R problem. Seed* is a new material (Table 8). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Relative error curves of different cases under different sampling rates. Blue represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The first column, second column, and third column in the figure depict the results of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The first column, second column, third column and fourth column in the figure depict the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    M. H. Elhareef, Z. Wu, Physics-informed neural network method and application to nuclear reactor calculations: A pilot study, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 197.4(2023), 601-622

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    G. I. Bell, S. Glasstone S, Nuclear reactor theory, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC (United States), (1970)

    work page 1970

  3. [2]

    Y. M. Hamada, Higher order compact finite difference schemes for steady and transient solutions of space–time neutron diffusion model, Ann. Nucl. Energy., 175(2022), 109177

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Azekura, New finite element solution technique for neutron diffusion equations, J

    K. Azekura, New finite element solution technique for neutron diffusion equations, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 17.2(1980), 89-97

    work page 1980

  5. [4]

    Demaziere, CORE SIM: A multi-purpose neutronic tool for research and education, Ann

    C. Demaziere, CORE SIM: A multi-purpose neutronic tool for research and education, Ann. Nucl. Energy., 38.12(2011), 2698-2718

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Bernal, R

    ´A. Bernal, R. Mir´ o, D. Ginestar, et al. Resolution of the generalized eigenvalue problem in the neutron diffusion equation discretized by the finite volume method, Abstr. Appl. Anal., Hindawi, 1(2014): 913043

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    P. J. Turinsky, R. M. K. Al-Chalabi, P. Engrand, et al. NESTLE: Few-group neutron diffusion equation solver utilizing the nodal expansion method for eigenvalue, adjoint, fixed-source steady- state and transient problems, No. EGG-NRE-11406. EG and G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [7]

    S. Tao, Y. Xu, Neutron transport analysis of C5G7-TD benchmark with PANDAS-MOC, Ann. Nucl. Energy., 169(2022), 108966

    work page 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Dissanayake, N

    M. Dissanayake, N. Phan-Thien, Neural-network-based approximations for solving partial dif- ferential equations, Commun. Numer. Meth. En., 10.3(1994), 195-201

    1994

  2. [9]

    I. E. Lagaris, A. Likas, D. I. Fotiadis, Artificial neural networks for solving ordinary and partial differential equations, IEEE. T. Neural. Networ., 9.5 (1998): 987-1000

    1998

  3. [10]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learn- ing framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys., 378(2019), 686-707

    2019

  4. [11]

    Raissi, A

    M. Raissi, A. Yazdani, G. E. Karniadakis, Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations, Science., 367.6481(2020), 1026-1030

    2020

  5. [12]

    Y. Chen, L. Lu, G. E. Karniadakis, et al. Physics-informed neural networks for inverse problems in nano-optics and metamaterials, Opt. Express., 28.8 (2020), 11618-11633

    2020

  6. [13]

    Zhang, L

    D. Zhang, L. Guo, G. E. Karniadakis, Learning in modal space: Solving time-dependent stochas- tic PDEs using physics-informed neural networks, SIAM. J. Sci. Comput., 42.2 (2020), A639- A665

    2020

  7. [14]

    L. Yang, D. Zhang, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed generative adversarial networks for stochastic differential equations, SIAM. J. Sci. Comput., 42.1(2020), A292-A317

    2020

  8. [15]

    S. Wu, B. Lu, INN: Interfaced neural networks as an accessible meshless approach for solving interface PDE problems, J. Comput. Phys., 470(2022), 111588. 24

    2022

  9. [16]

    W. F. Hu, T. S. Lin, M. C. Lai, A discontinuity capturing shallow neural network for elliptic interface problems, J. Comput. Phys., 469(2022), 111576

    2022

  10. [17]

    W. F. Hu, Y. J. Shih, T. S. Lin, et al. A shallow physics-informed neural network for solv- ing partial differential equations on static and evolving surfaces, Comput. Method. Appl. M., 418(2024), 116486

    2024

  11. [18]

    Cheng, J

    S. Cheng, J. Chen, C. Anastasiou, et al. Generalised latent assimilation in heterogeneous reduced spaces with machine learning surrogate models. J. Sci. Comput., 94.1 (2023), 11

    2023

  12. [19]

    Cheng, C

    S. Cheng, C. Liu, Y. Guo, et al. Efficient deep data assimilation with sparse observations and time-varying sensors, J. Comput. Phys., 496(2024), 112581

    2024

  13. [20]

    H. Gong, S. Cheng, Z. Chen, et al. Data-enabled physics-informed machine learning for reduced- order modeling digital twin: application to nuclear reactor physics, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 196.6 (2022), 668-693

    2022

  14. [21]

    An autoencoder-based reduced-order model for eigenvalue problems with application to neutron diffusion, Int

    Phillips, Toby RF, et al. An autoencoder-based reduced-order model for eigenvalue problems with application to neutron diffusion, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 122.15(2021), 3780-3811

    2021

  15. [22]

    Kashefi, T

    A. Kashefi, T. Mukerji, Prediction of fluid flow in porous media by sparse observations and physics-informed PointNet, Neural. Networks., 167(2023), 80-91

    2023

  16. [23]

    H. Zhou, S. Cheng, R. Arcucci, Multi-fidelity physics constrained neural networks for dynamical systems, Comput. Method. Appl. M., 420(2024), 116758

    2024

  17. [24]

    Z. Mao, A. D. Jagtap, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks for high-speed flows, Comput. Method. Appl. M., 360(2020), 112789

    2020

  18. [25]

    K. Nath, X. Meng, D. J. Smith, et al. Physics-informed neural networks for predicting gas flow dynamics and unknown parameters in diesel engines, Sci. REP-UK, 13.1(2023), 13683

    2023

  19. [26]

    J. Wang, X. Peng, Z. Chen, et al. Surrogate modeling for neutron diffusion problems based on conservative physics-informed neural networks with boundary conditions enforcement, Ann. Nucl. Energy., 176(2022), 109234

    2022

  20. [27]

    Y. Yang, H. Gong, S. Q. Zhang, et al. A data-enabled physics-informed neural network with comprehensive numerical study on solving neutron diffusion eigenvalue problems, Ann. Nucl. Energy., 183(2023), 109656

    2023

  21. [28]

    Q. H. Yang, Y. T. Deng, Y. Yang, et al. Neural networks based on power method and inverse power method for solving linear eigenvalue problems, Comput. Math. Appl., 147(2023), 14-24

    2023

  22. [29]

    Q. H. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. T. Deng, et al. Physics-Constrained neural network for solving dis- continuous interface K-eigenvalue problem with application to reactor physics, Nucl. Sci. Tech., 34.10(2023), 161

    2023

  23. [30]

    Y. Xie, Y. Wang, Y. Ma, et al. Neural network based deep learning method for multi-dimensional neutron diffusion problems with novel treatment to boundary, J. Nucl. Eng., 2.4(2021), 533-552. 25

    2021

  24. [31]

    T. R. F. Phillips, C. E. Heaney, P. N. Smith, et al,. An autoencoder-based reduced-order model for eigenvalue problems with application to neutron diffusion, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 122.15(2021), 3780-3811

    2021

  25. [32]

    Y. Xie, Y. Wang, Y. Ma, Boundary dependent physics-informed neural network for solving neutron transport equation, Ann. Nucl. Energy., 195(2024), 110181

    2024

  26. [34]

    Theler, F

    G. Theler, F. J. Bonetto, A. Clausse, Solution of the 2D IAEA PWR Benchmark with the neutronic code milonga, Actas de la Reuni´ on Anual de la Asociaci´ on Argentina de Tecnolog ´ ıa Nuclear, XXXVIII, (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    W. M. Stacey, Nuclear reactor physics, John Wiley and Sons, (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Marguet, The physics of nuclear reactors, Springer, (2018)

    S. Marguet, The physics of nuclear reactors, Springer, (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, et al. Automatic differentiation in pytorch, (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Demazi` ere, C

    C. Demazi` ere, C. Sunde, Calculation of the eigenfunctions and corresponding eigenvalues of the two-group diffusion equation in heterogeneous systems, Proceedings of the Joint International Topical Meeting on Mathematics and Computation and Supercomputing in Nuclear Applica- ...

    2007

  31. [39]

    L. A. Hageman, J. B. Yasinsky, Comparison of alternating-direction time-differencing methods with other implicit methods for the solution of the neutron group-diffusion equations, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 38.1(1969), 8-32

    1969

  32. [40]

    Hecht, New development in FreeFem++, J

    F. Hecht, New development in FreeFem++, J. Numer. Math., 20.3-4(2012): 251-266

    2012

  33. [41]

    T. G. Grossmann, U. J. Komorowska, J. Latz, et al, Can physics-informed neural networks beat the finite element method?, IMA J. Appl. Math., (2024): hxae011

    2024

  34. [42]

    Krishnapriyan, A

    A. Krishnapriyan, A. Gholami, S. Zhe, et al, Characterizing possible failure modes in physics- informed neural networks, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 34(2021), 26548-26560

    2021

  35. [43]

    K. Tang, X. Wan, C. Yang, DAS-PINNs: A deep adaptive sampling method for solving high- dimensional partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys., 476(2023), 111868

    2023

  36. [44]

    Y. Yang, Q. H. Yang, Y. T. Deng, et al., Moving sampling physics-informed neural networks induced by moving mesh PDE, Neural. Networks., 180(2024), 106706. 26 (a) Relative L∞ error of ϕ1 (b) Relative L2 error of ϕ1 (c) Relative L∞ error of ϕ2 (d) Relative L2 error of ϕ2 Figure...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.