Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Physics-Informed Neural Networks in Electromagnetic and Nanophotonic Design

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Physics-informed nets beat data-only nets for photonic design

desk verdict A broad but sloppy review: useful as a literature map for newcomers, but the central comparative claim about PINNs outperforming DNNs is unsupported and the citation errors need fixing before this can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03354 v1 pith:6VQZXMVB submitted 2025-05-06 physics.optics physics.comp-ph

Omar A. M. Abdelraouf , Abdulrahman M. A. Ahmed , Emadeldeen Eldele , Ahmed A. Omar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.comp-ph
keywords physics-informedneuralnetworksnanophotonicsdesigninverseelectromagneticsdeeplearningmetasurfaceselectromagneticfieldequationsforward
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

This review surveys recent work applying deep neural networks and physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) to electromagnetic and nanophotonic design. Its central claim is that embedding governing physical laws—the electromagnetic field equations, energy conservation, or nonlinear wave equations—directly into the network's training objective makes PINNs more reliable and data-efficient than purely data-driven DNNs for both forward prediction and inverse design. The paper supports this claim by cataloging applications in metasurface design, light scattering, antennas, nonlinear optics, and electromagnetic simulation, and by comparing architectures on speed, dataset needs, physical consistency, and accuracy. The stakes are practical: if the claim holds, the default design workflow shifts from generating large simulation datasets to training physics-constrained models that respect conservation laws and boundary conditions with far fewer samples.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the physics-augmented loss function, $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{data}}+\lambda\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{PDE}}$, in which the PDE residual—for electromagnetics, the residual of the governing field equations evaluated at collocation points—penalizes predictions that violate the embedded physics. Automatic differentiation supplies the spatial and temporal derivatives needed to compute that residual without numerical meshes. This single mechanism carries the argument: it is what makes PINNs data-efficient, physically consistent, and applicable to inverse problems, because the same loss can be minimized over unknown material parameters or geometries as well as over network weights.

What would settle it

A controlled benchmark would settle the central claim: take a fixed set of nanophotonic inverse-design tasks—for example, power splitters and a metasurface beam deflector—and train a PINN and a data-only DNN with matched compute budgets and identical training data, measuring accuracy as the dataset shrinks. If even one well-posed task shows the data-only network matching the PINN's accuracy with no more data, the review's comparative claim would need substantial qualification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that physics-informed neural networks unify data-driven learning with physical laws and thereby overcome the main weaknesses of pure data-driven DNNs: large data requirements, unphysical predictions, and poor handling of ill-posed inverse problems. The survey presents evidence that PINNs retrieve material parameters from scattered or near-field data without iterative solvers, predict field distributions in milliseconds, accelerate design cycles by orders of magnitude, and model nonlinear and time-dependent effects such as soliton dynamics and the optical Kerr effect. It also reports that PINNs typically need far fewer parameters than DNNs or CNNs—roughly 100k–1M versus 1M–20M—while enforcing physical consistency. The paper's contribution is synthetic rather than a new algorithm: it assembles the surveyed results into a comparative argument that physics-constrained learning, not raw data size, is the more robust route to photonic and electromagnetic design.

Load-bearing premise

The review assumes that its summaries of the cited papers are faithful and correctly attributed, because every comparative conclusion is built on those summaries; if a key study is misattributed or its reported numbers are wrong, the comparison loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Forward design—predicting spectra or field distributions from geometry—can be done from smaller datasets when physics residuals are part of the loss, because the governing equations act as a regularizer.
  • Inverse design can retrieve geometries, permittivity, or permeability from scattered or near-field data without iterative full-wave solvers, addressing problems that are ill-posed or non-unique.
  • Hybrid physics-informed frameworks, such as physics-augmented CNNs and physics-informed reinforcement learning, can cut design-cycle times by large factors while keeping fabrication constraints such as minimum feature size in the loop.
  • The same physics-constrained approach extends to nonlinear optics: self-focusing, soliton propagation, and power-dependent scattering can be modeled with less data than split-step or pure data-driven methods.
  • The review's own comparison identifies remaining bottlenecks—stiff nonlinear loss landscapes, spectral bias at high frequencies, and the difficulty of balancing data and physics loss terms—so adaptive loss weighting and hybrid architectures are the stated next steps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the surveyed pattern is correct, the practical bottleneck shifts from data collection to choosing the right physics residual and balancing it against data; a natural testable extension is a standardized benchmark that reports accuracy versus training-set size for matched compute budgets across PINN, DNN, and adjoint or full-wave baselines.
  • The physics-loss advantage should be largest when inverse solutions are non-unique, because the PDE residual selects physically admissible branches, and smallest in well-posed forward regression with abundant data, where pure data-driven networks may match or surpass PINNs—the review does not test this boundary.
  • The reported parameter-count contrast (PINNs at 100k–1M versus DNNs at 1M–20M) is suggestive but uncontrolled for accuracy and dataset size; a controlled scaling study could turn it into a quantitative design rule.
  • Because many surveyed PINN successes are demonstrated on single devices or narrow geometry classes, the strongest next test would be generalization across a broad, unseen geometry distribution—the regime where the review claims PINNs should most clearly outpace data-only networks.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of artificial intelligence, deep neural network (DNN), and physics-informed neural network (PINN) methods for electromagnetic and nanophotonic design. It reviews DNN and PINN fundamentals, forward and inverse design in nanophotonics, electromagnetic scattering and antenna applications, nonlinear optical modeling, and a comparative architecture overview in Table 1, concluding that PINNs offer a more reliable and data-efficient alternative to pure data-driven DNNs.

Significance. If its claims were properly supported, this survey would be a useful entry point for researchers seeking an overview of AI-based photonic and electromagnetic design, covering a broad range of architectures and applications. The paper's strengths are its wide thematic scope, recent references, and clear organization. However, because this is a review with no new mathematical results, its value rests entirely on the accuracy of its citations and summaries; the attribution errors and unsourced quantitative comparisons identified below currently undermine that basis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1] The quantitative model-complexity ranges listed in Table 1 (e.g., PINN: 100k-1M parameters; DNN: 1M-20M; Transformer: 10M-100M) are presented without any source or derivation. These numbers are load-bearing because the table is the paper's central comparative evaluation and the conclusion in Section 5 that 'PINNs are superior ... with small size of dataset' rests on them. The authors should either cite specific sources for each range, explain how they were estimated, or remove the quantitative entries and replace them with qualitative statements.
  2. [Section 2.3.2, closing paragraph] The claim that 'PINNs have demonstrated robustness in handling noisy data and complex parameter retrieval tasks, which outperformed DNNs in various studies' is supported only by reference 11 (Chen et al., Optics Express 2020). That paper solves inverse scattering problems with PINNs; it does not report a controlled benchmark against data-driven DNNs. The claimed superiority is therefore not established by this citation. The authors should either cite actual comparative studies or qualify the claim as an expectation rather than an established result.
  3. [Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2] The SOI power splitter work is attributed to 'Mohammed et. al.' in Section 2.2.1 with citation 71, but Section 2.2.2 correctly attributes the same work to Tahersima et al. with the same reference 71. This internal inconsistency indicates that the survey's summaries have not been checked against the cited sources. A related mismatch occurs earlier in Section 2.2.1, where Peurifoy et al. are cited with references 4 and 70, but reference 70 is So et al. (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2019), not Peurifoy et al. These errors erode confidence in the accuracy of the survey's account of the literature.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1.3.2, Eq. (2)] The chain-rule expression in Eq. (2) omits the summation over neurons in each layer; the standard backpropagation formula includes a sum over the units receiving the weight. This is a minor notation issue but should be corrected for pedagogical accuracy.
  2. [Section 2.1.1, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The two forms of the generalized Snell's law use inconsistent subscripts ('ni' in Eq. (5) and 'nI' in Eq. (6)), and the phase-gradient term dφ/dx is not defined. Please unify the notation and define all symbols.
  3. [Figure 3 captions] The four panels in Figure 3 describe specific PINN variants but do not include citation numbers in the caption text, making it difficult for readers to locate the corresponding sources. Please add reference pointers.
  4. [Section 2.3.2, text] The word 'Appartently' appears at the beginning of the closing paragraph; this should be 'Apparently'.
  5. [Section 4, Table 1 header] The column headed 'PINN Model Complexity (Params)' is confusing because the table lists many non-PINN architectures; presumably this column indicates whether the architecture is a PINN (Yes/No) and then lists typical parameter counts. Please rename the column or split it into two columns.
  6. [Section 4, text] The sentence 'Bayesian Optimization (BO) and Support Vector Machines (SVMs) provide d lightweight alternatives' contains a typo ('provide d' -> 'provided' or 'offer').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is a survey whose claims are literature summaries, not predictions derived from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

This manuscript is a review of DNNs and PINNs in nanophotonics and electromagnetics; it does not fit parameters to data and then present the fitted quantities as predictions, and it contains no derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The central claim that PINNs integrate physical laws into neural-network training is presented as a description of the surveyed literature (e.g., Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 define the standard PINN loss, which is a textbook formulation, not a result derived in this paper). No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation by construction, so the specific circularity patterns (self-definitional construction, fitted input called prediction, ansatz smuggled via citation, uniqueness imported from authors) are absent. Heavy self-citation occurs (refs 37, 40-59, 69) and the first author cites his own prior work for background topics such as tunable metasurfaces and a design tool, but those citations are contextual review entries rather than load-bearing support for the paper's comparative conclusion; the comparison of PINNs with DNNs is attributed to external works (e.g., ref 11 and the surveyed application papers), not to a self-citation chain. The skeptic's concerns about Table 1 being unsourced and Section 2.2.1 attributing the SOI power splitter work to 'Mohammed et. al.' while citing ref 71 (Tahersima et al.) are real evidentiary and accuracy issues, but they are verification/correctness problems, not circularity: an unsourced table or a mistaken citation does not make a claim equivalent to its own input. Likewise, the statement that PINNs outperform DNNs in various studies is a literature-claim evaluation issue because the cited paper may not contain a controlled benchmark; over-strong citation support is not the same as a derivation that presupposes its own conclusion. Honest non-finding is therefore appropriate: no circular step is exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review and introduces no fitted parameters or new entities. Its conclusions rest entirely on the cited literature; the only inputs are standard physics and machine learning background assumptions.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Maxwell's equations are the correct governing equations for the electromagnetic and nanophotonic systems discussed.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2.3.1 and 3.3 as the physics embedded in PINNs, e.g., in the context of Equation (3) and (4).
  • standard math Neural networks with sufficient capacity can approximate the relevant solution maps (universal approximation).
    Section 1.2.1 cites Sonoda and Murata (ref 17) for universal approximation, which underpins the capacity claims for DNNs and PINNs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Informed Neural Networks in Electromagnetic and Nanophotonic Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6VQZXMVB

@misc{pith2026250503354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Informed Neural Networks in Electromagnetic and Nanophotonic Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6VQZXMVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03354}
}
read the original abstract

The fusion of artificial intelligence (AI) with physics-guided frameworks has opened transformative avenues for advancing the design and optimization of electromagnetic and nanophotonic systems. Innovations in deep neural networks (DNNs) and physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) now provide robust tools to tackle longstanding challenges in light scattering engineering, meta-optics, and nonlinear photonics. This review outlines recent progress in leveraging these computational methodologies to enhance device performance across domains such as dynamic light modulation, antenna design, and nonlinear optical phenomena. We systematically survey advancements in AI-driven forward and inverse design strategies, which bypass conventional trial-and-error approaches by embedding physical laws directly into optimization workflows. Furthermore, the integration of AI accelerates electromagnetic simulations and enables precise modelling of complex optical effects, including topological photonic states and nonlinear interactions. A comparative evaluation of algorithmic frameworks highlights their strengths in balancing computational efficiency, multi-objective optimization, and fabrication feasibility. Challenges such as limited interpretability of AI models and data scarcity for unconventional optical modes are critically addressed. Finally, we emphasize future opportunities in scalable multi-physics modelling, adaptive architectures, and practical deployment of AI-optimized photonic devices. This work underscores the pivotal role of AI in transcending traditional design limitations, thereby propelling the development of next-generation photonic technologies with unprecedented functionality and efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integration of artificial intelligence, deep neural networks, and physics informed neural networks in nanophotonics and electromagnetism. (a) Applications of AI and DNNs in nanophotonics and electromagnetism: inverse design of frequency-selective surfaces (FSS) and antennas by linking electromagnetic responses to geometric parameters.1 Reprinted with permission from De Gruyter, Copyright 2021. (b) light modulation v… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Recent PINN architectures with physical constraints into DNN learning. (a) PINN with DNN solves Maxwell’s equations with separate field and parameter networks. Reprinted with permission from ArXiv, Copyright 2020. (b) A convolutional PINN incorporating finite difference methods to enforce PDE residuals. Reprinted with permission from ArXiv, Copyright 2024. (c) A physics-informed autoencoder (AE) leveraging latent-sp… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Broadband Tunable Deep-UV Emission from AI-Optimized Nonlinear Metasurface Architectures

    physics.optics 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    An AI surrogate is claimed to speed up multilayer metasurface design by 10,000x and enable simulated deep-UV third-harmonic emission tunable from 200 to 260 nm.

  2. Illuminating the Future: Nanophotonics for Future Green Technologies, Precision Healthcare, and Optical Computing

    physics.optics 2025-07 conditional

    A broad survey of nanophotonics applications claiming transformative potential in green energy, healthcare, and computing, with no new experimental results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    W.; Raman, A

    (1) Yeung, C.; Tsai, J.-M.; King, B.; Pham, B.; Ho, D.; Liang, J.; Knight, M. W.; Raman, A. P . Multiplexed supercell metasurface design and optimization with tandem residual networks. Nanophotonics 2021, 10 (3), 1133-1143. (2) Sajedian, I.; Kim, J.; Rho, J. Finding the optical properties of plasmonic structures by image processing using a combination of ...

    work page 2021

  2. [3]

    A.; Anthur, A

    (55) Abdelraouf, O. A.; Anthur, A. P .; Wang, X. R.; Wang, Q. J.; Liu, H. Modal phase- matched bound states in the continuum for enhancing third harmonic generation of deep ultraviolet emission. ACS nano 2024, 18 (5), 4388-4397. (56) Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Wang, H.; Deng, J.; Ruan, Q.; Zhang, W.; Abdelraouf, O. A.; Ang, N. S. S.; Dong, Z.; Yang, J. K. High -o...

    work page 2024

  3. [5]

    Physics-informed deep learning for 3D modeling of light diffraction from optical metasurfaces

    (15) Medvedev, V .; Erdmann, A.; Rosskopf, A. Physics-informed deep learning for 3D modeling of light diffraction from optical metasurfaces. Optics Express 2025, 33 (1), 1371-1384. (16) Schmidhuber, J. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural networks 2015, 61, 85-117. (17) Sonoda, S.; Murata, N. Neural network with unbounded activation funct...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [8]

    Applications of physics -informed neural networks in power systems-a review

    (26) Huang, B.; Wang, J. Applications of physics -informed neural networks in power systems-a review. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 2022, 38 (1), 572-

    work page 2022

  5. [12]

    Physics -informed multi -LSTM networks for metamodeling of nonlinear structures

    (32) Zhang, R.; Liu, Y .; Sun, H. Physics -informed multi -LSTM networks for metamodeling of nonlinear structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2020, 369, 113226. (33) Liu, F .; Li, J.; Wang, L. PI-LSTM: Physics-informed long short -term memory network for structural response modeling. Engineering Structures 2023, 292, 116500. (34...

    work page 2020

  6. [18]

    A.; Ghadrdan, M.; Jafari, P

    (82) Adibnia, E.; Mansouri-Birjandi, M. A.; Ghadrdan, M.; Jafari, P . A deep learning method for empirical spectral prediction and inverse design of all -optical nonlinear plasmonic ring resonator switches. Scientific Reports 2024, 14 (1),

    work page 2024

  7. [22]

    (105) Raissi, M.; Perdikaris, P .; Karniadakis, G. E. Physics -informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational physics 2019, 378, 686-707. (106) Lawal, Z. K.; Yassin, H.; Lai, D. T . C.; Che Idris, A. Physics-informed neural network (P...

    work page 2019

  8. [25]

    M.; Jiang, L.; Ng, M

    (114) Yao, H. M.; Jiang, L.; Ng, M. Implementing the Fast Full -Wave Electromagnetic Forward Solver Using the Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architecture. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 2022, 71 (1), 1152-

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [27]

    Y .; Tang, H.; Li, H.; Zhou, L.; Ding, J.; Agarwal, A

    (3) An, S.; Fowler, C.; Zheng, B.; Shalaginov, M. Y .; Tang, H.; Li, H.; Zhou, L.; Ding, J.; Agarwal, A. M.; Rivero -Baleine, C. A deep learning approach for objective -driven all-dielectric metasurface design. Acs Photonics 2019, 6 (12), 3196-3207. (4) Peurifoy, J.; Shen, Y ....

    2019

  2. [28]

    -B.; Lee, Y .; Choi, D.-H

    (23) Ryu, I.; Park, G. -B.; Lee, Y .; Choi, D.-H. Physics-informed neural network for engineers: a review from an implementation aspect. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 2024, 38 (7), 3499-3519. (24) Voytan, D.; Sen, M. K. Wave propagation with physics informed neu...

    2024

  3. [29]

    Electromagnetic modeling using an FDTD-equivalent recurrent convolution neural network: Accurate computing on a deep learning framework

    (116) Guo, L.; Li, M.; Xu, S.; Yang, F .; Liu, L. Electromagnetic modeling using an FDTD-equivalent recurrent convolution neural network: Accurate computing on a deep learning framework. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine 2021, 65 (1), 93-102. (117) Chen, X. Computational ...

    2021

  4. [30]

    R.; Zekios, C

    (125) Khan, M. R.; Zekios, C. L.; Bhardwaj, S.; Georgakopoulos, S. V . A generalized approach to real -time performance estimation of antenna types using deep learning. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation and USNC-URSI Radio Science Meeting (AP-S/U...

    2022

  5. [32]

    C.; Debbah, M.; Yuen, C

    (134) Huang, C.; Zappone, A.; Alexandropoulos, G. C.; Debbah, M.; Yuen, C. Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy efficiency in wireless communication. IEEE transactions on wireless communications 2019, 18 (8), 4157-4170. (135) Al Kassir, H.; Zaharis, Z. D.; Lazaridis,...

    2019 arXiv

  6. [33]

    Intelligent reflecting surface configurations for smart radio using deep reinforcement learning

    (140) Wang, W.; Zhang, W. Intelligent reflecting surface configurations for smart radio using deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 2022, 40 (8), 2335-2346. (141) Khan, A.; Lowther, D. A. Physics informed neural networks for electromagne...

    2022

  7. [34]

    Physics-Informed neural network solver for numerical analysis in geoengineering

    (147) Chen, X.-X.; Zhang, P .; Yin, Z.-Y . Physics-Informed neural network solver for numerical analysis in geoengineering. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 2024, 18 (1), 33-51. (148) Hu, Y .-D.; Wang, X. -H.; Zhou, H.; Wang, L. ...

    2024

  8. [35]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    (149) Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P .; Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer - assisted intervention –MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III...

    2015

  9. [38]

    R.; Paul, E

    (174) Wray, P . R.; Paul, E. G.; Atwater, H. A. Optical filters made from random metasurfaces using Bayesian optimization. Nanophotonics 2024, 13 (2), 183 -

    2024

  10. [39]

    Antenna array processing for radar applications using support vector machines

    (176) Xu, N.; Christodoulou, C.; Martinez -Ramon, M.; Ozdemir, T. Antenna array processing for radar applications using support vector machines. In 2006 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium , 2006; IEEE: pp 1295-1298. (177) Jin, L.; Huang, Y .-W.; Jin,...

    2006

  11. [60]

    Optimization of photonic crystal nanocavities based on deep learning

    (76) Asano, T.; Noda, S. Optimization of photonic crystal nanocavities based on deep learning. Optics express 2018, 26 (25), 32704-32717. (77) Jin, Y .; He, L.; Wen, Z.; Mortazavi, B.; Guo, H.; Torrent, D.; Djafari-Rouhani, B.; Rabczuk, T.; Zhuang, X.; Li, Y . Intelligent on -...

    2018

  12. [140]

    A review of deep learning approaches for inverse scattering problems (invited review)

    (107) Chen, X.; Wei, Z.; Maokun, L.; Rocca, P . A review of deep learning approaches for inverse scattering problems (invited review). Electromagnetic Waves 2020, 167, 67-81. (108) Qi, S.; Wang, Y .; Li, Y .; Wu, X.; Ren, Q.; Ren, Y . Two -dimensional electromagnetic solver ba...

    2020

  13. [169]

    C.; Piket -May, M

    (61) Taflove, A.; Hagness, S. C.; Piket -May, M. Computational electromagnetics: the finite-difference time-domain method. The Electrical Engineering Handbook 2005, 3 (629-670),

    2005

  14. [194]

    Deep-learning-enabled on-demand design of chiral metamaterials

    (156) Ma, W.; Cheng, F .; Liu, Y . Deep-learning-enabled on-demand design of chiral metamaterials. ACS nano 2018, 12 (6), 6326-6334. (157) So, S.; Yang, Y .; Lee, T.; Rho, J. On-demand design of spectrally sensitive multiband absorbers using an artificial neural network. Photo...

    2018

  15. [440]

    (28) Wu, Y .; Sicard, B.; Gadsden, S. A. Physics -informed machine learning: A comprehensive review on applications in anomaly detection and condition monitoring. Expert Systems with Applications 2024, 124678. (29) Jakšić, Z. Synergy between AI and Optical Metasurfaces: A Crit...

    2024

  16. [442]

    (30) Gao, H.; Sun, L.; Wang, J. -X. PhyGeoNet: Physics -informed geometry - adaptive convolutional neural networks for solving parameterized steady -state PDEs on irregular domain. Journal of Computational Physics 2021, 428, 110079. (31) Zideh, M. J.; Solanki, S. K. Multivaria...

    2021

  17. [588]

    E.; Kevrekidis, I

    (27) Karniadakis, G. E.; Kevrekidis, I. G.; Lu, L.; Perdikaris, P .; Wang, S.; Yang, L. Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics 2021, 3 (6), 422 -

    2021

  18. [1157]

    Solving Maxwell's equations with Non-Trainable Graph Neural Network Message Passing

    (115) Bakirtzis, S.; Fiore, M.; Zhang, J.; Wassell, I. Solving Maxwell's equations with Non-Trainable Graph Neural Network Message Passing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00814

    arXiv

  19. [1261]

    P .; Li, Y

    (165) Wang, H. P .; Li, Y . B.; Li, H.; Dong, S. Y .; Liu, C.; Jin, S.; Cui, T . J. Deep learning designs of anisotropic metasurfaces in ultrawideband based on generative adversarial networks. Advanced Intelligent Systems 2020, 2 (9), 2000068. (166) Liu, M.; Zhang, H.; Song, J...

    2020 arXiv

  20. [1368]

    Training deep neural networks for the inverse design of nanophotonic structures

    (72) Liu, D.; Tan, Y .; Khoram, E.; Yu, Z. Training deep neural networks for the inverse design of nanophotonic structures. Acs Photonics 2018, 5 (4), 1365-1369. (73) Liu, Z.; Zhu, D.; Rodrigues, S. P .; Lee, K.-T.; Cai, W. Generative model for the inverse design of metasurfac...

    2018

  21. [1492]

    (98) Jiang, X.; Wang, D.; Fan, Q.; Zhang, M.; Lu, C.; Lau, A. P . T. Physics‐Informed Neural Network for Nonlinear Dynamics in Fiber Optics. Laser & Photonics Reviews 2022, 16 (9), 2100483. (99) Linka, K.; Schäfer, A.; Meng, X.; Zou, Z.; Karniadakis, G. E.; Kuhl, E. Bayesian P...

    2022 arXiv

  22. [2015]

    F .; Roundy, D.; Ibanescu, M.; Bermel, P .; Joannopoulos, J

    (63) Oskooi, A. F .; Roundy, D.; Ibanescu, M.; Bermel, P .; Joannopoulos, J. D.; Johnson, S. G. MEEP: A flexible free -software package for electromagnetic simulations by the FDTD method. Computer Physics Communications 2010, 181 (3), 687-702. (64) Grosges, T.; Vial, A.; Barch...

    2010

  23. [2017]

    Recent advances in convolutional neural networks

    (20) Gu, J.; Wang, Z.; Kuen, J.; Ma, L.; Shahroudy, A.; Shuai, B.; Liu, T .; Wang, X.; Wang, G.; Cai, J. Recent advances in convolutional neural networks. Pattern recognition 2018, 77, 354-377. (21) Hochreiter, S.; Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 199...

    2018

  24. [2018]

    Electromagnetic imaging of a dielectric micro- structure via convolutional neural networks

    (118) Ran, P .; Qin, Y .; Lesselier, D. Electromagnetic imaging of a dielectric micro- structure via convolutional neural networks. In 2019 27th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 2019; IEEE: pp 1-5. (119) Fajardo, J. E.; Galván, J.; Vericat, F .; Carlevaro, C. M...

    2019 arXiv

  25. [2019]

    Ž.; Olćan, D

    (120) Stanković, Z. Ž.; Olćan, D. I.; Dončov, N. S.; Kolundžija, B. M. Consensus deep neural networks for antenna design and optimization. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 2021, 70 (7), 5015-5023. (121) Smida, A.; Ghayoula, R.; Nemri, N.; Trabelsi, H.; Gharsallah,...

    2021

  26. [2023]

    M.; Wei, E.; Jiang, L

    (110) Yao, H. M.; Wei, E.; Jiang, L. Two-step enhanced deep learning approach for electromagnetic inverse scattering problems. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 2019, 18 (11), 2254-2258. (111) Weng, W.-C.; Yang, F .; Elsherbeni, A. Z. Linear antenna array synthesi...

    2019

  27. [2024]

    J.; Jin, B.; Chen, J

    (14) Xu, Y .; Yang, J.-Q.; Fan, K.; Wang, S.; Wu, J.; Zhang, C.; Zhan, D.-C.; Padilla, W. J.; Jin, B.; Chen, J. Physics -informed Inverse Design of Multi -bit Programmable Metasurfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16795

    arXiv

  28. [2754]

    A review of optical neural networks

    (95) Sui, X.; Wu, Q.; Liu, J.; Chen, Q.; Gu, G. A review of optical neural networks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 70773-70783. (96) Chen, M.; Lupoiu, R.; Mao, C.; Huang, D. -H.; Jiang, J.; Lalanne, P .; Fan, J. A. High speed simulation and freeform optimization of nanophotonic devices...

    2020

  29. [4789]

    On‐demand dynamic polarization meta ‐transformer

    (178) Hu, Q.; Chen, K.; Zhao, J.; Dong, S.; Jiang, T.; Feng, Y . On‐demand dynamic polarization meta ‐transformer. Laser & Photonics Reviews 2023, 17 (1), 2200479

    2023

  30. [5787]

    Computational spectrometers enabled by nanophotonics and deep learning

    (83) Gao, L.; Qu, Y .; Wang, L.; Yu, Z. Computational spectrometers enabled by nanophotonics and deep learning. Nanophotonics 2022, 11 (11), 2507-2529. (84) Kojima, K.; Tahersima, M. H.; Koike -Akino, T.; Jha, D. K.; Tang, Y .; Wang, Y .; Parsons, K. Deep neural networks for i...

    2022

  31. [6537]

    R.; Muskens, O

    (6) Wiecha, P . R.; Muskens, O. L. Deep learning meets nanophotonics: a generalized accurate predictor for near fields and far fields of arbitrary 3D nanostructures. Nano letters 2019, 20 (1), 329-338. (7) Zhen, Z.; Qian, C.; Jia, Y .; Fan, Z.; Hao, R.; Cai, T.; Zheng, B.; Che...

    2019 arXiv

  32. [6766]

    (127) Ali, E.; Ismail, M.; Nordin, R.; Abdulah, N. F . Beamforming techniques for massive MIMO systems in 5G: overview, classification, and trends for future research. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering 2017, 18, 753-772. (128) Zaharis, Z. D.; Gravas,...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.