Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Reconstruction of three-dimensional fluid stress field via photoelasticity using physics-informed convolutional encoder-decoder

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A physics-informed convolutional encoder-decoder reconstructs the 3D shear-stress distribution inside a rectangular channel flow from 2D photoelastic phase-difference and orientation images, with errors of a few percent on interpolated…

desk verdict Clever combination of CNN encoder-decoder and physics loss for photoelastic stress reconstruction, but the validation is circular and the physics loss is incomplete, so the headline claim isn't yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15952 v1 pith:G6Y4EP5G submitted 2025-04-22 physics.flu-dyn physics.data-an

Daichi Igarashi , Shunsuke Kumagai , Yuto Yokoyama , Yee Jingzu , Masanobu Horie , Yoshiyuki Tagawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.data-an
keywords photoelasticityphysics-informedneuralnetworksconvolutionalencoder-decoder3Dstressfieldreconstructionflowbirefringencerectangularchannelcellulosenanocrystalsuspension
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 tries to establish that a machine-learning model can turn two-dimensional photoelastic images into a three-dimensional stress field inside a flowing fluid, a step that is normally obstructed because a stress tensor has more independent components than the two quantities a polarization camera records along its line of sight. The proposed model, PICED, is a convolutional encoder-decoder whose loss adds the residual of Cauchy's equation of motion and the continuity equation, so the network is pushed toward reconstructions that respect mechanics without invoking a stress–strain constitutive law. Trained on laminar flow of a cellulose-nanocrystal suspension in a rectangular channel, with the theoretical Newtonian solution as ground truth, PICED predicts the shear stress components $\sigma_{xy}$ and $\sigma_{xz}$ and the velocity $u_x$ at interpolated flow rates with relative squared errors near $10^{-2}$. If correct, this gives a non-contact route to stress measurement in complex fluids whose constitutive equations are unknown, a situation where velocity-based stress estimation fails.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the composite loss of PICED, which combines an image-to-image convolutional encoder-decoder with a physics-informed regularizer. The network uses 2D convolutions and pooling on the phase-difference, orientation, and flow-rate images, then 3D convolutions and upsampling to produce 3D fields of $\sigma_{xy}$, $\sigma_{xz}$, and $u_x$; with only the mean-squared-error data loss this is the CNN baseline. The physics term adds the residual of the $x$-component of Cauchy's equation of motion, $L_N = \frac{1}{N}\sum \left( \frac{1}{\rho}\left( \frac{\partial \sigma_{xy}}{\partial y} + \frac{\partial \sigma_{xz}}{\partial z} \right) - u_x \frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x} \right)^2$, and the continuity residual $L_C = \frac{1}{N}\sum \left( \frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x} \right)^2$, with total loss $L_{\mathrm{total}} = L_{\mathrm{data}} + \lambda L_N + \lambda' L_C$. Because Cauchy's equation does not require a viscosity model, this regularizer selects, among the many stress fields consistent with the integrated images, one that obeys momentum balance, which is what lets the method claim applicability to fluids with unknown constitutive equations. Derivatives are computed by three-point central differences, and the one-pixel layer adjacent to the wall is excluded from the physics loss.

What would settle it

Apply the trained PICED to a flow in the same channel whose stress field is known independently — for example a shear-thinning or viscoelastic fluid with rheometer-characterized parameters, or a direct force-based stress measurement — and compare the predicted $\sigma_{xy}$ and $\sigma_{xz}$ with that independently known stress; if the error grows as the fluid departs from Newtonian behavior, the claim of measuring true stress without a constitutive equation is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that PICED learns to invert the integrated photoelastic measurement: given 64×64 pixel images of phase difference $\Delta$ and orientation $\varphi$, plus the flow rate, it outputs the three-dimensional distributions of $\sigma_{xy}$, $\sigma_{xz}$, and $u_x$ throughout the channel. The training and test target is the theoretical solution for laminar Newtonian flow in a rectangular duct, using the measured infinite-shear viscosity $\mu_{\mathrm{inf}} = 1.58$ mPa·s. On flow rates held out from training ($Q = 20$, 40, 60 mL/min), the predicted stress components agree with this target to within a relative squared error of roughly 1–5%, and the model captures the variation along the optical axis that is not directly visible in the integrated input images. PICED also produces significantly smaller residuals of the Cauchy equation than a plain CNN trained only on image data, and those residuals stay nearly constant as the flow rate increases instead of growing. The conclusion the authors draw is that the 3D stress tensor field, and quantities such as the maximum principal stress derived from it, can be reconstructed for interpolated flow conditions from photoelastic images by this combined data-and-physics learning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, introduced in Section 2.2, is that the theoretical Newtonian solution with a single fitted viscosity faithfully represents the true stress in the CNC suspension, so all reported accuracies are measured against that analytic model rather than against an independently measured stress field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the physics loss uses only Cauchy's equation and continuity, the trained pipeline does not depend on a constitutive equation, so the same approach could be applied to complex fluids whose stress–strain relation is unknown.
  • The model predicts flow rates between its training conditions, so a limited set of measured flow conditions can be interpolated to reconstruct stress at intermediate operating points.
  • The reconstructed stress tensor yields the maximum principal stress $\sigma_1 = \sqrt{\sigma_{xy}^2 + \sigma_{xz}^2}$ and its direction, providing a map of where and in what direction the fluid is most strongly stressed.
  • PICED's physical residual $L_N$ stays small and roughly constant across test flow rates, while the CNN's residual grows with flow rate, indicating that the physics term keeps the reconstruction mechanically consistent rather than merely image-faithful.
  • The model reproduces the depthwise stress variation even though the input is a line-of-sight integral, showing that the network recovers 3D structure that a simple projection would appear to discard.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the ground truth is an analytic Newtonian solution, the reported 1–5% errors measure agreement with that model, not with an independently measured stress field; the method should be re-validated against a known non-Newtonian stress field before being used for constitutive-law-free measurement.
  • The component analysis found no statistically significant benefit from including orientation, which suggests that the phase-difference image alone may suffice for this flow; testing PICED with only $\Delta$ would show whether the physics term supplies the missing directional information.
  • The same Cauchy-and-continuity loss structure could be applied to unsteady or higher-Reynolds flows without modification, so a natural extension is to time-resolved photoelastic data and to turbulent channel flow, where the momentum balance still holds but the constitutive question is harder.
  • Multi-angle photoelastic imaging, which the paper names as future work, could make the full nonsymmetric stress tensor identifiable; a concrete test would be training on two orthogonal views and checking whether the normal stress components $\sigma_{xx}$, $\sigma_{yy}$, $\sigma_{zz}$ become recoverable instead of only the shear components.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 PICED, a convolutional encoder-decoder augmented with a physics-informed loss, to reconstruct the three-dimensional stress tensor in a rectangular channel flow from two-dimensional photoelastic measurements (phase difference and orientation). The input images are experimental birefringence data for a CNC suspension at several flow rates, while the output labels are the analytic Newtonian duct-flow solution of Eq. (6) for the stress components σxy, σxz and the streamwise velocity ux. The authors compare PICED with a plain CNN, report relative squared errors of order 10^-2 to 10^-3, and claim that PICED yields smaller residuals of the governing equations while maintaining similar data fidelity. The paper also includes an ablation study on the input channels and a visualization of the reconstructed maximum principal stress field.

Significance. If the claims hold, the approach would be a meaningful step toward non-invasive, image-based stress measurements in fluids with unknown constitutive behavior, without assuming axial symmetry. The manuscript has clear strengths: the experimental input is genuine polarization-camera data, the training protocol is described in enough detail to be reproduced (five repeated training runs, reported standard deviations, explicit Adam settings, early stopping), and the authors perform a channel-ablation study. However, the validation is entirely against a theoretical Newtonian model rather than measured stress, the physics loss in Eq. (15) is missing the pressure-gradient term, and the constant flow-rate input could by itself determine the output. These issues directly affect the central claim, so the current evidence is not sufficient to establish the method as a tool for reconstructing actual stress fields in complex fluids.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3.2, Eq. (15)] The physics loss LN in Eq. (15) omits the streamwise pressure-gradient term. For the fully developed unidirectional flow described by Eq. (6), the exact x-momentum balance is ∂σxy/∂y + ∂σxz/∂z = ∂p/∂x, with ∂ux/∂x = 0. Since the pressure gradient is nonzero in a pressure-driven duct flow, the ground-truth stress field does not satisfy the residual as written; in fact, (1/ρ)(∂σxy/∂y + ∂σxz/∂z) equals (1/ρ)(∂p/∂x), which is nonzero. A network trained to minimize Eq. (15) is therefore penalized for reproducing the correct physics, and the reported reduction in LN for PICED relative to CNN does not demonstrate improved physical consistency. The authors should correct Eq. (15) to include the pressure-gradient term (for example, by treating ∂p/∂x as an additional unknown to be inferred or by writing the loss in terms of the full Cauchy equation including ∂σxx/∂x), and then re-evaluate the comparison between PICED and CNN.
  2. [§2.3.1 and §3.2] The flow rate Q is fed to the network as a constant-valued 64×64 image, and the target stress and velocity fields are fully determined by Q through Eq. (6) once the channel geometry and μ_inf are fixed. Since all test flow rates (20, 40, 60 mL/min) are interpolated between training flow rates, a model that receives only the constant Q image and ignores the photoelastic input could, in principle, produce the reported RSE values by memorizing or interpolating the Q→σ mapping. The ablation in §3.2 is consistent with this risk: removing the orientation channel causes no statistically significant change, while adding Q improves accuracy. To establish the central claim of reconstructing stress from photoelastic measurements, the authors must add a baseline trained on Q alone (without Δ and φ) and report its Ldata and RSE on the same test sets. If that Q-only baseline matches CNN or PICED, the photoelastic channels have no demonstrated role, and the claimed reconstruction from photoelasticity is not supported.
  3. [§2.2 and §3.1] The ground truth for both training and evaluation is the analytic Newtonian solution of Eq. (6) with a single fitted viscosity μ_inf, not an experimentally measured stress field. The CNC suspension is shown in Fig. 5 to be shear-thinning (power-law exponent m ≈ 0.9), and the paper's justification for the Newtonian assumption rests on a comparison of velocity profiles, not on stress measurements. Consequently, the reported RSE values quantify agreement with a theoretical model, and the abstract/conclusion claim of high-accuracy stress prediction does not transfer to the actual stress in the CNC suspension if the real stress deviates from the Newtonian prediction. The authors should either validate against an independent stress measurement (e.g., rheologically determined stresses) or explicitly scope the claims to 'reconstruction of the theoretical Newtonian stress field' and discuss the impact of constitutive uncertainty. As written, the method's applicability to fluids with unknown constitutive equations is not demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 12 caption and text after it] The caption and the surrounding passage contain apparent remnants of a thesis draft: the caption refers to 'Fig. 5.11' and the following text contains 'Table 5.1' with values that differ from Table 1 of this manuscript, as well as garbled non-English characters. This material should be removed or replaced with the correct figure/table references and consistent numbers.
  2. [§2.2] The value μ_inf = 1.58 is given without units. Since the rheometer plot in Fig. 5 uses mPa·s and Eq. (6) requires SI units, please state the units of μ_inf explicitly and describe the conversion used when computing the stress field.
  3. [§3.1, Figure 12] The line definitions in the Figure 12 caption are inconsistent: 'Line 1: x = z = 32 pix' and 'Line 3: x = z = 32 pix' are identical, and the caption does not match the axes shown in the figure. Please correct the line definitions.
  4. [§2.3.1] The term 'four-dimensional (4D) CNN' is ambiguous. Since the network uses three spatial dimensions plus a channel dimension, it would be clearer to describe it as a 3D convolutional encoder-decoder with an additional channel dimension, or to define '4D' precisely in the text.
  5. [Table 1 vs Table 3] For the same CNN configuration with both phase difference and orientation plus flow rate as inputs, Table 1 and Table 3 report different Ldata values (e.g., Q = 20 mL/min: 1.05±0.30 e-4 in Table 1 versus 2.02±0.70 e-4 in Table 3). Please clarify whether the definition of Ldata or the data split differs between the two tables; as written, the inconsistency is confusing.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Stress 'prediction' reduces to Q-only interpolation of the analytic Newtonian solution; the photoelastic channels are shown to be unnecessary.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6); Sec. 2.3.1; Sec. 3.2, Table 3]
    "incorporating flow rate information into the input images in addition to phase difference and orientation resulted in improved accuracy. Therefore, we included the flow rate as part of the input images. The flow rate is represented in a 64 × 64 pixel image, where the value of the flow rate is filled in all pixels. ... the stress distribution, which serves as the ground truth data for machine learning, is derived from the theoretical solution for laminar flow of a Newtonian fluid in a rectangular channel ..."

    From Eq. (6), ux is proportional to Q, and because the labels are Newtonian stresses σxy = μ∂ux/∂y and σxz = μ∂ux/∂z, the target stress field is also proportional to Q for the fixed channel geometry and fitted μinf. The input already contains Q as a uniform 64×64 image, so the network can map Q to the analytic stress without using Δ or φ; Table 3 confirms φ has no statistically significant effect and that adding Q is the main accuracy driver. All test rates Q=20, 40, 60 mL/min lie between training rates, so the reported high-accuracy 'prediction' reduces to interpolation of a known laminar solution along a one-dimensional parameter. The benchmark is closed-loop: Eq.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is that PICED can predict 3D stress fields from photoelastic images, validated on interpolated flow rates Q=20, 40, 60 mL/min. This is not circular in the narrow sense that the network never receives the analytic formula or a fitted stress parameter; the RSE is an honest interpolation error on held-out flow rates. However, the claimed reconstruction 'via photoelasticity' reduces by construction. Eq. (6) makes ux proportional to Q, so the Newtonian shear stresses used as labels are also proportional to Q. Since Q is fed as a constant image and the test rates are inside the training range, the network need only learn the one-dimensional map Q→σ, and it can ignore the photoelastic channels. The paper's own ablation shows orientation φ has no significant effect and that flow rate is the accuracy driver, yet no Q-only baseline is tested. Thus the reported accuracy does not establish that the 3D stress field is reconstructed from the photoelastic measurement; it establishes interpolation of the same analytic solution that generated the labels. This is a partial circularity: the comparison of PICED versus CNN on the physical-equation loss LN is independent of this issue and retains some content, so the score is 6 rather than higher. There is no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz-smuggling self-citation; the self-citations to the same group's stress-optic law are not the source of the reduction.

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

The central claim depends on the Newtonian ground truth, the stress-optic model, and the (incorrect) physics loss; the latter is an error, not a justified axiom.

free parameters (3)
  • μ_inf (infinite shear viscosity) = 1.58 mPa·s
    Calculated from rheometer measurements and used to compute the theoretical stress ground truth in Section 2.2.
  • K and m (power-law fit) = K≈4.0, m≈0.9
    Fitted to rheometer data in Eq. (7); used to justify the Newtonian approximation for the CNC suspension.
  • Loss weights λ and λ′ = λ=1.0, λ′=1.0×10⁻²
    Set by parameter tuning in Section 2.3.2; control the balance between data loss and physics loss.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The stress-optic law (Eqs. 3-4) correctly relates integrated phase difference and orientation to line integrals of stress components.
    Section 2.1.1; taken from prior photoelasticity literature, assumes the CNC suspension obeys this linear stress-optic relation.
  • domain assumption The flow is steady, fully developed laminar flow of a Newtonian fluid in a rectangular channel, so the velocity field is given by Eq. (6).
    Section 2.2; the CNC suspension is treated as Newtonian with constant viscosity μ_inf despite measured shear-thinning; velocity comparison supports approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Cauchy's equation of motion in the form of Eq. (15), without a pressure gradient term, is the correct physical constraint.
    Section 2.3.2; the equation omits the pressure gradient term ∂p/∂x, so it does not represent the actual momentum balance for pressure-driven channel flow.
  • domain assumption The photoelastic images faithfully represent the integrated stress along the optical axis, and wall-adjacent pixels are usable without correction.
    Section 2.1.3; authors acknowledge wall pixels deviate but use them anyway.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstruction of three-dimensional fluid stress field via photoelasticity using physics-informed convolutional encoder-decoder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G6Y4EP5G

@misc{pith2026250415952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstruction of three-dimensional fluid stress field via photoelasticity using physics-informed convolutional encoder-decoder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G6Y4EP5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15952}
}
read the original abstract

Measuring stress fields in fluids and soft materials is crucial in various fields such as mechanical engineering, medicine, and bioengineering. However, conventional methods that calculate stress fields from velocity fields struggle to measure complex fluids where the stress constitutive equation is unknown. To address this, we propose a novel approach that combines photoelastic measurements -- which can non-invasively visualize internal stresses -- with machine learning to measure stress fields. The machine learning model, which we named physics-informed convolutional encoder-decoder (PICED), integrates a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based encoder-decoder model with a physics-informed neural network (PINN). Using this approach, three-dimensional stress fields can be predicted with high accuracy for multiple interpolated data points in a rectangular channel flow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the theory of the pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental setup for capturing the flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example images of (a) phase difference and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of (a) phase difference and (b) orientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The relationship between shear rate and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Architecture of the convolutional encoder-decoder for the reconstruction of stress and velocity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Loss function of the physics-informed convolu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Validation losses with respect to epochs for five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 3D distributions of stress and velocity: theoretical values, prediction values of PICED and CNN for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 2D distributions of stress and velocity: theo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stress and velocity values for each axis in Fig. 5.7-5.10. Line 2 [pix]Line 2 [pix] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stress and velocity values for each line in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 3D map for the direction and the intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. Meng, V. Tutino, J. Xiang, A. Siddiqui, High WSS or Low WSS? Complex Interactions of Hemodynamics with In- tracranial Aneurysm Initiation, Growth, and Rupture: toward a Unifying Hypothesis, American Journal of Neuroradiology 35 (7) (2014) 1254–1262

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    van Ooij, W

    P. van Ooij, W. V. Potters, J. Collins, M. Carr, J. Carr, S. C. Malaisrie, P. W. M. Fedak, P. M. McCarthy, M. Markl, A. J. Barker, Characterization of Abnormal Wall Shear Stress Us- ing 4D Flow MRI in Human Bicuspid Aortopathy 43 (6) 1385– 1397

    work page

  3. [3]

    Traub, B

    O. Traub, B. C. Berk, Laminar shear stress: mechanisms by which endothelial cells transduce an atheroprotective force, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 18 (5) (1998) 677–685

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Tzima, M

    E. Tzima, M. Irani-Tehrani, W. B. Kiosses, E. Dejana, D. A. Schultz, B. Engelhardt, G. Cao, H. DeLisser, M. A. Schwartz, A mechanosensory complex that mediates the endothelial cell response to fluid shear stress, Nature 437 (7057) (2005) 426– 431

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    M. J. Mitchell, M. R. King, Computational and experimental models of cancer cell response to fluid shear stress, Frontiers in oncology 3 (2013) 44736

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    H. J. Lee, M. F. Diaz, K. M. Price, J. A. Ozuna, S. Zhang, E. M. Sevick-Muraca, J. P. Hagan, P. L. Wenzel, Fluid shear stress activates YAP1 to promote cancer cell motility, Nature communications 8 (1) (2017) 14122

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Tagawa, N

    Y. Tagawa, N. Oudalov, C. W. Visser, I. R. Peters, D. van der Meer, C. Sun, A. Prosperetti, D. Lohse, Highly focused super- sonic microjets, Physical review X 2 (3) (2012) 031002

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Igarashi, J

    D. Igarashi, J. Yee, Y. Yokoyama, H. Kusuno, Y. Tagawa, The effects of secondary cavitation position on the velocity of a laser-induced microjet extracted using explainable artificial intelligence, Physics of Fluids 36 (1) (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    N. W. Bartlett, M. T. Tolley, J. T. Overvelde, J. C. Weaver, B. Mosadegh, K. Bertoldi, G. M. Whitesides, R. J. Wood, A 3D-printed, functionally graded soft robot powered by com- bustion, Science 349 (6244) (2015) 161–165

    2015

  2. [10]

    Vikas, E

    V. Vikas, E. Cohen, R. Grassi, C. S¨ ozer, B. Trimmer, Design and locomotion control of a soft robot using friction manip- ulation and motor–tendon actuation, IEEE Transactions on Robotics 32 (4) (2016) 949–959

    2016

  3. [11]

    D. C. Drucker, R. D. Mindlin, Stress analysis by three- dimensional photoelastic methods, Journal of Applied Physics 11 (11) (1940) 724–732

    1940

  4. [12]

    H. Aben, L. Ainola, J. Anton, Integrated photoelasticity for nondestructive residual stress measurement in glass, Optics and lasers in engineering 33 (1) (2000) 49–64

    2000

  5. [13]

    Ramesh, V

    K. Ramesh, V. Ramakrishnan, Digital photoelasticity of glass: A comprehensive review, Optics and Lasers in Engineering 87 (2016) 59–74

    2016

  6. [14]

    C. Lane, D. Rode, T. R¨ osgen, Optical characterization method for birefringent fluids using a polarization camera, Optics and Lasers in Engineering 146 (2021) 106724

    2021

  7. [15]

    C. Lane, D. Rode, T. R¨ osgen, Birefringent properties of aque- ous cellulose nanocrystal suspensions, Cellulose 29 (11) (2022) 6093–6107

    2022

  8. [16]

    Calabrese, S

    V. Calabrese, S. Varchanis, S. J. Haward, A. Q. Shen, Alignment of colloidal rods in crowded environments, Macro- molecules 55 (13) (2022) 5610–5620

    2022

  9. [17]

    R. Full, A. Yamauchi, D. Jindrich, Maximum single leg force production: cockroaches righting on photoelastic gelatin, Journal of Experimental Biology 198 (12) (1995) 2441–2452

    1995

  10. [18]

    Miyazaki, M

    Y. Miyazaki, M. Usawa, S. Kawai, J. Yee, M. Muto, Y. Tagawa, Dynamic mechanical interaction between injec- tion liquid and human tissue simulant induced by needle-free injection of a highly focused microjet, Scientific reports 11 (1) (2021) 14544

    2021

  11. [19]

    Yokoyama, B

    Y. Yokoyama, B. R. Mitchell, A. Nassiri, B. L. Kinsey, Y. P. Korkolis, Y. Tagawa, Integrated photoelasticity in a soft ma- terial: phase retardation, azimuthal angle, and stress-optic co- efficient, Optics and Lasers in Engineering 161 (2023) 107335

    2023

  12. [20]

    Nakamine, Y

    K. Nakamine, Y. Yokoyama, W. K. A. Worby, M. Muto, Y. Tagawa, Flow birefringence of cellulose nanocrystal sus- pensions in three-dimensional flow fields: revisiting the stress- optic law, Cellulose 31 (12) (2024) 7405–7420

    2024

  13. [21]

    W. K. A. Worby, K. Nakamine, Y. Yokoyama, M. Muto, Y. Tagawa, Examination of flow birefringence induced by the shear components along the optical axis using a parallel-plate- type rheometer, Scientific Reports 14 (1) (2024) 21931

    2024

  14. [22]

    R. Prabhakaran, On the stress-optic law for orthotropic-model materials in biaxial-stress fields: The stress-optic law for or- thotropic materials is examined for special cases and some differences between isotropic-and orthotropic-model behavior are presented. Application to ...

    1975

  15. [23]

    Janeschitz-Kriegl, Polymer melt rheology and flow birefrin- gence, Vol

    H. Janeschitz-Kriegl, Polymer melt rheology and flow birefrin- gence, Vol. 6, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 11

    2012

  16. [24]

    Errapart, Determination of All Stress Components of Ax- isymmetric Stress State in Photoelastic Tomography, in: Ad- vances in Experimental Mechanics VIII, Vol

    A. Errapart, Determination of All Stress Components of Ax- isymmetric Stress State in Photoelastic Tomography, in: Ad- vances in Experimental Mechanics VIII, Vol. 70 of Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans Tech Publications Ltd, 2011, pp. 434–439

    2011

  17. [25]

    Anton, A

    J. Anton, A. Errapart, H. Aben, L. Ainola, A Discrete Algo- rithm of Integrated Photoelasticity for Axisymmetric Prob- lems, Experimental Mechanics 48 (5) (2008) 613–620

    2008

  18. [26]

    H. Aben, A. Puro, Photoelastic tomography for three- dimensional flow birefringence studies, Inverse Problems 13 (2) (1997) 215

    1997

  19. [27]

    T. J. Ober, J. Soulages, G. H. McKinley, Spatially resolved quantitative rheo-optics of complex fluids in a microfluidic device, Journal of Rheology 55 (5) (2011) 1127–1159

    2011

  20. [28]

    J. Kim, S. Michelin, M. Hilbers, L. Martinelli, E. Chaudan, G. Amselem, E. Fradet, J.-P. Boilot, A. M. Brouwer, C. N. Baroud, et al., Monitoring the orientation of rare-earth-doped nanorods for flow shear tomography, Nature nanotechnology 12 (9) (2017) 914–919

    2017

  21. [29]

    G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, L. Yang, Physics-informed machine learning, Na- ture Reviews Physics 3 (6) (2021) 422–440

    2021

  22. [30]

    S. Cai, Z. Mao, Z. Wang, M. Yin, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics- informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A re- view, Acta Mechanica Sinica 37 (12) (2021) 1727–1738

    2021

  23. [31]

    X. Jin, S. Cai, H. Li, G. E. Karniadakis, NSFnets (Navier- Stokes flow nets): Physics-informed neural networks for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, Journal of Computa- tional Physics 426 (2021) 109951

    2021

  24. [32]

    Kissas, Y

    G. Kissas, Y. Yang, E. Hwuang, W. R. Witschey, J. A. Detre, P. Perdikaris, Machine learning in cardiovascular flows mod- eling: Predicting arterial blood pressure from non-invasive 4D flow MRI data using physics-informed neural networks, Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Mahmoudabadbozchelou, G

    M. Mahmoudabadbozchelou, G. E. Karniadakis, S. Jamali, nn-PINNs: Non-Newtonian physics-informed neural networks for complex fluid modeling, Soft Matter 18 (1) (2022) 172–185

    2022

  26. [34]

    Horie, N

    M. Horie, N. Morita, T. Hishinuma, Y. Ihara, N. Mitsume, Iso- metric Transformation Invariant and Equivariant Graph Con- volutional Networks, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Horie, N

    M. Horie, N. Mitsume, Physics-Embedded Neural Networks: E (n)-Equivariant Graph Neural PDE Solvers., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Horie, N

    M. Horie, N. Mitsume, Graph neural PDE solvers with con- servation and similarity-equivariance, in: Forty-first Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    M. Bass, E. W. Van Stryland, D. R. Williams, W. L. Wolfe, Handbook of optics, Vol. 2, McGraw-Hill New York, 1995

    1995

  30. [38]

    Onuma, Y

    T. Onuma, Y. Otani, A development of two-dimensional bire- fringence distribution measurement system with a sampling rate of 1.3 MHz, Optics communications 315 (2014) 69–73

    2014

  31. [39]

    Delplace, Laminar flow of Newtonian liquids in ducts of rectangular cross-section a model for both physics and math- ematics, Open Access J

    F. Delplace, Laminar flow of Newtonian liquids in ducts of rectangular cross-section a model for both physics and math- ematics, Open Access J. Math. Theor. Phys. 1 (5) (2018) 198– 201

    2018

  32. [40]

    Nagamoto, Y

    H. Nagamoto, Y. Kobayashi, J. Otomo, E. Oshima, Laminar Flow Characteristics in a Rectangular Microchannel, Kagaku Kougaku Ronbunshu 32 (2006) 293–296

    2006

  33. [41]

    A. F. Agarap, Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu), arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08375 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Mathematics of control, signals and systems 2 (4) (1989) 303–314

    G. Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Mathematics of control, signals and systems 2 (4) (1989) 303–314

    1989

  35. [43]

    D. P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Isard, M

    M. Isard, M. Budiu, Y. Yu, A. Birrell, D. Fetterly, Dryad: distributed data-parallel programs from sequential building blocks, in: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems 2007, 2007, pp. 59–72

    2007

  37. [45]

    M. Li, T. Zhang, Y. Chen, A. J. Smola, Efficient mini-batch training for stochastic optimization, in: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 2014, pp. 661–670

    2014

  38. [46]

    Prechelt, Early stopping-but when?, in: Neural Networks: Tricks of the trade, Springer, 2002, pp

    L. Prechelt, Early stopping-but when?, in: Neural Networks: Tricks of the trade, Springer, 2002, pp. 55–69. 12

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.