Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Finite Element Neural Network Interpolation. Part II: Hybridisation with the Proper Generalised Decomposition for non-linear surrogate modelling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a parametric mechanics surrogate can be assembled on the fly by training each factor of a PGD tensor decomposition as a sparse finite-element neural network, with mode count and meshes chosen automatically during…

desk verdict A credible proof-of-concept for training PGD modes with FENNI via backprop, but the paper's central nonlinear accuracy claim is not yet backed by numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05714 v1 pith:TQYJ3YKC submitted 2024-12-07 physics.comp-ph

Alexandre Daby-Seesaram , Kateřina Škardová , Martin Genet This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords propergeneraliseddecompositiontensorfiniteelementneuralnetworkinterpolationparametricreduced-ordermodellinglinearelasticitySaintVenant-Kirchhofftransferlearningadaptivemesh
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 proposes FENNI-PGD, a reduced-order surrogate method that builds a Proper Generalised Decomposition (PGD) of a parametrised mechanics problem using the Finite Element Neural Network Interpolation framework from Part I. Instead of collecting high-fidelity snapshots, it trains the space and parameter modes of a tensor decomposition directly, so the reduced-order basis is available as soon as training ends. The claim is that this can be done automatically: the number of modes is decided greedily by loss stagnation, the spatial and parametric meshes are refined during training, and changing the physics only means changing the loss function. If true, this removes most of the manual choices that currently make PGD solvers problem-dependent, and makes real-time parametric elasticity simulations, such as soft-tissue digital twins, much more accessible. The paper demonstrates the idea on 1D and 2D linear elasticity and a Saint Venant-Kirchhoff finite-strain example, with relative errors below one percent on the tested parameter configurations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the FENNI-PGD tensor decomposition $u(x,\{\mu_i\}) = \sum_{i=1}^m u_i(x) \prod_{j=1}^{\beta} \lambda_i^j(\mu_j)$, in which each mode factor is a FENNI module, i.e., a neural network constrained to reproduce finite element shape functions whose parameters are nodal values and nodal coordinates. Three mechanisms drive the argument: a greedy loop that appends a mode whenever the relative loss decrease falls below a threshold in Eq. (16); two-stage optimisation combining Adam for exploration and L-BFGS for fine-tuning; and separated loss expressions computed by tensor contraction that avoid forming the full solution. The multigrid training strategy completes the machinery by transferring a converged coarse decomposition to finer meshes, so mesh refinement and convergence studies happen as part of training.

What would settle it

One decisive test is to run the same FENNI-PGD procedure on a problem whose loss cannot be written in separated form, such as a compressible hyperelastic model with a coupling term mixing deformation gradient and parameter fields, and measure how wall-clock time per epoch scales as the number of parameters grows from 2 to 5, since exponential rather than roughly linear scaling would contradict the curse-of-dimensionality claim; alternatively, on the paper's own 2D example, check whether the loss-stagnation stopping point coincides with low relative L2 error against a fine finite element solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the FENNI framework can serve as an elementary building block for generating PGD modes: each factor in the tensor decomposition is a sparse neural network whose trainable parameters are finite element nodal values and coordinates, and the tensor product structure is assembled inside the network. The decomposition is built greedily during training, but the authors find that retraining all modes together after each addition yields a lower-rank decomposition than the classical sequential strategy. Because the potential-energy loss is written in separated form for linear elasticity and Saint Venant-Kirchhoff elasticity, the full-order solution is never assembled, and the training is carried out by backpropagation with Adam followed by L-BFGS. On the numerical examples, the method selects the number of modes on its own, transfers coarse modes to finer meshes by interpolation, and produces surrogates whose errors against reference finite element solutions stay below one percent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the loss can be evaluated in separated form—as sums of products of space-only and parameter-only terms—without ever assembling the full solution, with a secondary reliance on a heuristic stagnation criterion that is not proven to track surrogate accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surrogate models for parametric elasticity can be constructed without any full-order solves or snapshot selection, so the offline phase reduces to training a single network architecture.
  • The number of modes is selected automatically, replacing the manual rank selection and convergence studies of classical PGD.
  • Changing from linear to finite-strain elasticity only requires swapping the energy expression in the loss, so the same code path handles different physics.
  • Because modes are interpretable and transferable, a model trained on a coarse mesh can be refined and reused, cutting the cost of fine-mesh training.
  • Once trained, the surrogate is evaluated by summing products of modes, so new parameter values are obtained in real time without solving the PDE.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the separable-loss condition is the real boundary of the method; any constitutive model whose energy is polynomial in modes could be implemented without full assembly, but non-polynomial or history-dependent behaviour would not.
  • Beyond the paper: because all modes are retrained together, the same simultaneous-update idea could be used as a post-processing step in classical PGD solvers to improve rank optimality without changing the greedy enrichment.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's own suggestion of coupling the decomposition with an auto-encoder latent space points to a natural test on a problem with poor low-rank approximability, where the mode count rather than the mesh size would reveal the method's practical limits.
  • Beyond the paper: the loss-stagnation stopping rule has no certified link to solution error; a practical extension would replace or supplement it with a residual-based error estimator to make automatic mode selection trustworthy in safety-critical applications.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FENNI-PGD, a hybrid reduced-order modelling method in which the modes of a Proper Generalised Decomposition are represented by FENNI networks and trained by minimising the potential energy averaged over the parameter space with Adam and L-BFGS optimisers. Modes are added greedily using a loss-stagnation criterion, the spatial mesh can be refined through a multigrid transfer-learning strategy, and the same framework is applied to linear elasticity and Saint Venant-Kirchhoff (SVK) elasticity. The paper reports a 1D analytical benchmark, a 2D two-parameter linear elasticity benchmark with relative L2 errors below 1%, and a 2D nonlinear SVK example validated only by loss-decay curves and qualitative displacement plots. The central claims are that the method builds a surrogate based on a tensor decomposition automatically on the fly, adapts the spatial and parametric discretisation during training, and provides a versatile framework for linear and nonlinear mechanics.

Significance. If the claims hold, the method is a useful contribution to reduced-order modelling: it combines the interpretability of finite element shape functions with automatic differentiation, allowing a PGD-like decomposition to be obtained without problem-specific solvers. The open-source implementation and interactive demos are concrete strengths that support reproducibility. The linear 2D benchmark gives quantitative evidence (Table 2) that the surrogate can approximate finite element solutions well, and the 1D analytical example shows that the method can recover an exact one-mode decomposition. The validation is not circular, since it compares against analytical and FEM reference solutions. However, the evidence is incomplete: no train/test split is described for the linear benchmark, the nonlinear SVK example has no quantitative error measure, and the greedy convergence criterion is heuristic. These issues are fixable, but they must be addressed before the general claims of accurate nonlinear surrogate modelling are accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4, Figures 12-13, and Section 6] The central claim of non-linear surrogate modelling is not empirically supported. Section 4.4 reports only loss decay (Figure 12) and qualitative displacement fields (Figure 13) for the Saint Venant-Kirchhoff example, with no relative-error metric against a full-order FEM solution. The final sentence of Section 6 states that the surrogate model 'has been compared to a finite element solution and shows small relative errors,' but that comparison appears only for the linear case in Table 2. Because the SVK potential (Eq. 22) is non-convex, a decreasing training loss does not certify proximity to the equilibrium solution. Please add quantitative error evaluations, such as relative L2 errors and error maps at held-out parameter configurations, for the SVK surrogate, or restrict the nonlinear claims accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2.3, Table 2] No train/test split is described. Table 2 evaluates eight parameter pairs (E, θ), but the text does not state whether these pairs are part of the training sample, held out during training, or chosen after the model converged. Without an explicit held-out set and a description of the parametric quadrature used in the loss (Eq. 15), the sub-1% relative errors may be in-sample and do not establish generalisation. Please report the training/validation split, the sampling rule for the parameter space, and errors on genuinely unseen parameter points.
  3. [Section 3.2.1, Eq. (16), and Algorithm 1] The stopping and mode-addition criterion is heuristic. Eq. (16) defines stagnation by the relative loss decrease ĴL = 2(L_{n-1} − L_n)/(L_{n-1} + L_n) ≤ η_c, and Algorithm 1 adds a new mode after a fixed number of stagnating epochs. However, no argument or numerical experiment links loss stagnation to the accuracy of the reduced-order solution, and the hyperparameters max_stgn, new_mode_threshold, min_useful, and η_c are free parameters. Please validate the criterion, for example by comparing the ROM error at the stopping point with errors obtained from continued training or from an independent residual-based estimator, or replace it with a certified stopping rule.
  4. [Section 5, 'Overcoming the curse of dimensionality'] The scope of the method is narrower than the abstract's general claim. Section 5 explicitly states that 'This paper only focuses on losses that can be written without building the full solution,' and notes that for non-separable losses the cost grows exponentially with the number of parameters. Since the abstract claims the method 'addresses the curse of dimensionality' for parametric problems in general, please qualify the claim: for separable losses the complexity is linear in the number of parameters, but for general non-linear losses the framework as presented does not overcome the curse. Adding a brief complexity analysis for the separable case would also help substantiate the efficiency statement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1.1] The text says the second half of the bar is [L/1, L]; this appears to be a typo for [L/2, L].
  2. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'utilising the using the Multiplication block' contains a duplicated article and should be rephrased.
  3. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'the loss function to to be minimised' has a duplicated 'to' and should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3.2.3, Figure 11] The claim that '80% of the training is done on the coarse mesh' should specify whether this refers to epochs, wall-clock time, or computational cost; otherwise the statement is ambiguous.
  5. [Section 4.2.2] The comparison between sequential and simultaneous training would be more informative if it reported solution errors against the reference solution, not only loss values and mode counts.
  6. [Appendix A, Eq. (27) and (32)] The index notation in the tensorised loss expressions, such as λ^{(0)}_{mp} and det(J)_{em}, is not defined; please specify the summation ranges and the meaning of the superscripts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: linear benchmarks are validated against external analytical/FEM references; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation and an unquantified SVK accuracy gap remain.

full rationale

The paper's central validation is not circular. The training objective L in Eq. (15) is the averaged physical potential energy (Eq. (1)), so minimizing it is the original mechanics problem rather than a surrogate for it. The linear-elastic FENNI-PGD results are checked against an exact analytical solution in Section 4.2.1 and against full-order FEM solutions in Section 4.2.3, with relative errors below 1% in Table 2; the error maps in Figure 10 are also external comparisons. The 1D example whose analytical solution is exactly one mode is a consistency check, not a fitted prediction. The main self-citation is to the authors' submitted Part I [Škardová et al., 2024] for the FENNI interpolation building block; although this is same-author and not yet independently published, Part II exercises that building block through its own external benchmarks and provides open-source code, so the argument does not reduce to the self-citation. The loss-stagnation stopping rule, Eq. (16), is explicitly a heuristic operational definition of 'convergence'; it is not presented as an independent error estimator, though the text should not be read as deriving accuracy from it. The genuine weakness is evidential rather than circular: Section 4.4 reports only loss decay and qualitative displacement plots for the Saint Venant-Kirchhoff case, with no relative-error table against FEM, yet Section 6 states that 'The surrogate model has been compared to a finite element solution and shows small relative errors, validating the working principle of the framework.' That overgeneralization is unsupported for the nonlinear case but is a validation gap, not a definitional equivalence. The paper also candidly limits itself to separable losses in Section 5, which is a stated scope restriction rather than a hidden circular assumption. Overall, no prediction or derived result is identical by construction to its input.

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

No new physical entities, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced. The method relies on standard PGD and FEM concepts plus the FENNI framework from Part I, with algorithmic hyperparameters chosen by the authors.

free parameters (4)
  • Convergence threshold eta_c = not reported
    Defines when a new mode is added and when training stops (Eq. 16); the paper states convergence precision is driven by this threshold but gives no value and no sensitivity study.
  • max_stgn, new_mode_threshold, min_useful = not reported; described as arbitrary values in Algorithm 1
    Control mode addition and termination; the authors say the algorithm is insensitive over a broad range (5 to 100) but provide no supporting data.
  • Parameter-space quadrature rule = not specified
    The loss in Eq. (15) integrates over the parameter hypercube; Appendix A evaluates it at quadrature points, and the choice of these points affects training and any in-sample error reporting.
  • Number of multigrid levels = 5 in the demonstrated case
    The multigrid strategy in Section 4.3 uses five refinement levels; the level count is a user choice influencing cost and accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The solution admits a separated low-rank representation as in Eq. (9)
    The PGD ansatz is assumed; the method's efficiency depends on small m, and Section 5 acknowledges that problems with larger Kolmogorov width need more modes.
  • domain assumption The loss can be written in tensor-decomposed form without assembling the full-order solution
    Stated in Section 5 and Appendix A; linear and Saint Venant-Kirchhoff losses qualify, but the paper concedes other physics would incur exponential cost.
  • domain assumption FENNI interpolation properties from Part I hold
    The paper builds modes from the FENNI framework of Skardova et al. 2024, cited as a submitted manuscript; its shape-function interpolation, adaptivity, and transferability are assumed without independent verification.
  • ad hoc to paper Loss stagnation is a valid convergence criterion for the tensor decomposition
    Algorithm 1 uses Eq. (16) to add modes and stop; no proof or independent error estimator connects stagnation to reduced-order model accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite Element Neural Network Interpolation. Part II: Hybridisation with the Proper Generalised Decomposition for non-linear surrogate modelling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQYJ3YKC

@misc{pith2026241205714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite Element Neural Network Interpolation. Part II: Hybridisation with the Proper Generalised Decomposition for non-linear surrogate modelling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQYJ3YKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05714}
}
read the original abstract

This work introduces a hybrid approach that combines the Proper Generalised Decomposition (PGD) with deep learning techniques to provide real-time solutions for parametrised mechanics problems. By relying on a tensor decomposition, the proposed method addresses the curse of dimensionality in parametric computations, enabling efficient handling of high-dimensional problems across multiple physics and configurations. Each mode in the tensor decomposition is generated by a sparse neural network within the Finite Element Neural Network Interpolation (FENNI) framework presented in Part I, where network parameters are constrained to replicate the classical shape functions used in the Finite Element Method. This constraint enhances the interpretability of the model, facilitating transfer learning, which improves significantly the robustness and cost of the training process. The FENNI framework also enables finding the optimal spatial and parametric discretisation dynamically during training, which accounts to optimising the model's architecture on the fly. This hybrid framework offers a flexible and interpretable solution for real-time surrogate modelling. We highlight the efficiency of the FENNI-PGD approach through 1D and 2D benchmark problems, validating its performance against analytical and numerical reference solutions. The framework is illustrated through linear and non-linear elasticity problems, showing the flexibility of the method in terms of changes in physics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chintala, S

    Ansel, J., Yang, E., He, H., Gimelshein, N., Jain, A., Voznesensky, M., Bao, B., Bell, P., Berard, D., Burovski, E., Chauhan, G., Chourdia, A., Constable, W., Desmaison, A., DeVito, Z., Ellison, E., Feng, W., Gong, J., Gschwind, M., . . . Chintala, S. (2024) . PyTorch 2: Faster Machine Learning Through Dynamic Python Bytecode Transformation and Graph Comp...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    New York, NY , USA, Association for Computing Machinery. 929–947. https://doi.org/10.1145/3620665.3640366. (Cit. on p

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    & Sacks, M

    Motiwale, S., Zhang, W., Feldmeier, R. & Sacks, M. S. (2024). A neural network finite element approach for high speed cardiac mechanics simulations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 427, 117060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2024.117060 (cit. on p

    arXiv 2024

  4. [5]

    & Tawhai, M

    Burrowes, K., Swan, A., Warren, N. & Tawhai, M. (2008) . Towards a virtual lung: Multi-scale, multi-physics modelling of the pulmonary system.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1879), 3247–3263. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0073 (cit. on p

    work page arXiv 2008

  5. [6]

    H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J

    Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J. & Zhu, C. (1995). A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization — SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing. (Cit. on p. 9). Caforio, F., Regazzoni, F., Pagani, S., Karabelas, E., Augustin, C., Haase, G., Plank, G. & Quarteroni, A. (2024). Physics-informed neural network estimation of material properties in soft...

    doi:10.1007/s00466-024-02516-x 1995

  6. [7]

    Y., Hadjicharalambous, M., Asner, L., Lee, J., Sermesant, M., Kuhl, E., Young, A

    Chabiniok, R., Wang, V . Y., Hadjicharalambous, M., Asner, L., Lee, J., Sermesant, M., Kuhl, E., Young, A. A., Moireau, P., Nash, M. P., Chapelle, D. & Nordsletten, D. A. (2016). Multiphysics and multiscale modelling, data–model fusion and integration of organ physiology in the clinic: Ventricular cardiac mechanics.Interface Focus, 6(2), 20150083. https:/...

    work page arXiv 2016

  7. [8]

    Chatterjee, A. (2000). An introduction to the proper orthogonal decomposition. Current Science, 78(7), 808–817 (cit. on p. 2). Chinesta, F., Ladeveze, P. & Cueto, E. (2011) . A Short Review on Model Order Reduction Based on Proper Generalized Decomposition. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , 18(4), 395–404. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11831-...

    doi:10.1007/s11831-011-9064-7 2000

  8. [9]

    & N´eron, D

    Daby-Seesaram, A., Fau, A., Charbonnel, P.- ´E. & N´eron, D. (2023). A hybrid frequency-temporal reduced-order method for nonlinear dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, 111(15), 13669–13689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071- 023-08513-8 (cit. on p

    doi:10.1007/s11071- 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [10]

    & Gao, H

    Dalton, D., Husmeier, D. & Gao, H. (2023) . Physics-informed graph neural network emulation of soft-tissue mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 417, 116351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cma.2023.116351 (cit. on p

    2023

  2. [11]

    & Genet, M

    Daby-Seesaram, A., ˇSkardov´a, K. & Genet, M. (2024b) . NeuROM. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14218478. (Cit. on p

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    Du, H. & He, Q. (2024). Neural-Integrated Meshfree (NIM) Method: A differentiable programming-based hybrid solver for computational mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 427, 117024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2024.117024 (cit. on pp. 3,

    2024

  4. [13]

    & Rochette, M

    Giacoma, A., Dureisseix, D., Gravouil, A. & Rochette, M. (2015). Toward an optimal a priori reduced basis strategy for frictional contact problems with LATIN solver.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 283, 1357–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2014.09.005...

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    & Drummond, D

    Gonsard, A., Genet, M. & Drummond, D. (2024). Digital twins for chronic lung diseases. European Respiratory Review, In Press (cit. on p. 2). Haghighat, E., Raissi, M., Moure, A., Gomez, H. & Juanes, R. (2021). A physics-informed deep learning framework for inversion and surrog...

    2024

  6. [15]

    & Landwehr, N

    Hijazi, S., Freitag, M. & Landwehr, N. (2023). POD-Galerkin reduced order models and physics-informed neural networks for solving inverse problems for the Navier–Stokes equations. Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences, 10(1),

    2023

  7. [16]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-023-00242-2 (cit. on p

    doi

  8. [17]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. CoRR (cit. on p. 9). 25 10th December 2024 Ladev`eze, P. & Dureisseix, D. (1999). Une nouvelle strat´egie de calcul micro/macro en m´ecanique des structures. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´emie des Sciences -...

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    & Trayanova, N

    Laubenbacher, R., Mehrad, B., Shmulevich, I. & Trayanova, N. (2024) . Digital twins in medicine. Nature Computational Science, 4(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-024-00607-6 (cit. on p

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    -Y., Nunes, H., Bernaudin, J

    Laville, C., Fetita, C., Gille, T., Brillet, P. -Y., Nunes, H., Bernaudin, J. -F. & Genet, M. (2023) . Comparison of optimization parametrizations for regional lung compliance estimation using personalized pulmonary poromechanical modeling. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechano...

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Le Tallec, P. (1994). Numerical methods for nonlinear three-dimensional elasticity. InHandbook of Numerical Analysis (pp. 465–622). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-8659(05)80018-3. (Cit. on p

    1994 doi

  12. [21]

    Lee, J., Cookson, A., Roy, I., Kerfoot, E., Asner, L., Vigueras, G., Sochi, T., Deparis, S., Michler, C., Smith, N. P. & Nordsletten, D. A. (2016). Multiphysics Computational Modeling in$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{C}}\mathbf{Heart}$. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 38(3), C150...

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    & Mart´ın, A

    Badia, S., Li, W. & Mart´ın, A. F. (2024). Finite element interpolated neural networks for solving forward and inverse problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 418, 116505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cma.2023.116505 (cit. on pp. 3,

    2024

  14. [23]

    & Nocedal, J

    Liu, D. & Nocedal, J. (1989) . On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical Programming, 45(1-3), 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01589116 (cit. on p

    1989 doi

  15. [24]

    & Gravouil, A

    Lu, Y., Blal, N. & Gravouil, A. (2018a). Adaptive sparse grid based HOPGD: Toward a nonintrusive strategy for constructing space-time welding computational vademecum. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 114(13), 1438–1461. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.57...

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    & Gravouil, A

    Lu, Y., Blal, N. & Gravouil, A. (2018b) . Multi-parametric space-time computational vademecum for parametric studies: Application to real time welding simulations. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 139, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2017.10.008 (cit. on p

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    Maday, Y., Patera, A. T. & Turinici, G. (2002). A Priori Convergence Theory for Reduced-Basis Approximations of Single-Parameter Elliptic Partial Differential Equations. Journal of Scientific Computing, 17(1), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015145924517 (cit. on p

    2002 doi

  18. [27]

    & Rønquist, E

    Maday, Y. & Rønquist, E. M. (2002). A Reduced-Basis Element Method. Journal of Scientific Computing, 17(1), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015197908587 (cit. on p

    2002 doi

  19. [28]

    & N´eron, D

    Matray, V ., Amlani, F., Feyel, F. & N´eron, D. (2024). A hybrid numerical methodology coupling reduced order modeling and Graph Neural Networks for non-parametric geometries: Applications to structural dynamics problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, ...

    2024

  20. [29]

    & Relun, N

    N´eron, D., Boucard, P.-A. & Relun, N. (2015). Time-space PGD for the rapid solution of 3D nonlinear parametrized problems in the many-query context. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 103(4), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.4893 (cit. on p

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    & Chinesta, F

    Niroomandi, S., Gonz ´alez, D., Alfaro, I., Bordeu, F., Leygue, A., Cueto, E. & Chinesta, F. (2013) . Real-time simulation of biological soft tissues: A PGD approach. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 29(5), 586–600. https://doi.org/10.1002...

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    Nouy, A. (2010). A priori model reduction through Proper Generalized Decomposition for solving time-dependent partial differential equations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 199(23-24), 1603–

    2010

  23. [32]

    -Y., Fetita, C., Bernaudin, J

    Patte, C., Brillet, P. -Y., Fetita, C., Bernaudin, J. -F., Gille, T., Nunes, H., Chapelle, D. & Genet, M. (2022) . Estimation of Regional Pulmonary Compliance in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Based on Personalized Lung Poromechanical Modeling. Journal of Biomechanical Engineer...

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    & Negri, F

    Quarteroni, A., Manzoni, A. & Negri, F. (2016). Reduced Basis Methods for Partial Differential Equations (V ol. 92). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15431-2. (Cit. on p

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    & Manzoni, A

    Quarteroni, A., Rozza, G. & Manzoni, A. (2011). Certified reduced basis approximation for parametrized partial differential equations and applications. Journal of Mathematics in Industry, 1(1),

    2011

  26. [35]

    & Karniadakis, G

    26 10th December 2024 Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019) . Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686–707...

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    & Ammar, A

    Ryckelynck, D., Chinesta, F., Cueto, E. & Ammar, A. (2006). On the a priori model reduction: Overview and recent developments. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 13(1), 91–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02905932 (cit. on p

    2006

  28. [37]

    Sirovich, L. (1987). Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I. Coherent structures. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 45(3), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/910462 (cit. on p

    1987 doi

  29. [38]

    & Genet, M

    ˇSkardov´a, K., Daby-Seesaram, A. & Genet, M. (2024) . Finite Element Neural Network Interpolation: Part I - Interpretable and adaptive discretization for solving PDEs. submitted (cit. on pp. 3, 5–7). Zhang, L., Cheng, L., Li, H., Gao, J., Yu, C., Domel, R., Yang, Y., Tang, S....

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    & Liu, W

    Zhang, L., Lu, Y., Tang, S. & Liu, W. K. (2022). HiDeNN-TD: Reduced-order hierarchical deep learning neural networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 389, 114414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cma.2021.114414 (cit. on p

    2022

  31. [1626]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.01.009 (cit. on pp. 2,

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.