Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Physics-Informed Neural Networks For Semiconductor Film Deposition: A Review

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Machine learning in semiconductor film deposition clusters into four application areas, and the paper argues physics-informed neural networks are the route to more data-efficient, interpretable process control.

desk verdict A well-organized review with a solid PINN overview, but the taxonomy has a hollow category and citation errors that undercut the 'comprehensive' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10983 v1 pith:HGKFXOSQ submitted 2025-07-15 cs.LG

Tao Han , Zahra Taheri , Hyunwoong Ko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords Physics-informedneuralnetworkssemiconductormanufacturingfilmdepositionchemicalvaporatomiclayerdefectrecognitionprocesscontrolpredictivemaintenance
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 examines machine-learning and deep-learning studies aimed at semiconductor film deposition (CVD, PVD, and ALD) and organizes them into four application areas: process control and optimization, defect image recognition, tool maintenance and anomaly detection, and ALD precursor finding. It argues that across these areas, current models share structural weaknesses: simplified reaction physics, heavy reliance on large labeled datasets, limited interpretability, and poor generalization beyond training conditions. The paper's constructive claim is that physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), which train networks to respect governing equations as well as data, fit film deposition naturally because the underlying transport and reaction physics are known. It surveys the main technical levers for making PINNs practical (loss reweighting and adaptive resampling) and proposes future directions including combining PINNs with graph networks and treating machine learning as a system-level decision tool.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PINN loss function, written in the paper as $L = w_f L_f + w_B L_B + w_d L_d$, where $L_f$ penalizes violation of the governing PDE, $L_B$ enforces boundary or initial conditions, and $L_d$ fits observed data, with weights $w_f$, $w_B$, and $w_d$ balancing the terms. The paper's argument that PINNs can help film deposition rests on this object: with physics embedded as a loss term, a network can be trained on sparse or noisy fab data while still respecting known transport and reaction laws. The second piece of machinery is the four-category taxonomy in Section 3, which gives the review its claim to being a structured map rather than an annotated bibliography. The named class of objects central to the review is the Physics-Informed Neural Network, a neural network trained to satisfy a differential equation, its boundary conditions, and available data simultaneously; the review also catalogues the main methods for balancing those objectives.

What would settle it

A systematic search with explicit inclusion criteria over the same period that finds a substantial number of deposition-ML papers outside the four categories would falsify the review's comprehensiveness claim; re-reading the cited papers and finding that the tabulated accuracies or model descriptions do not match the originals would falsify the summary layer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a taxonomy: the machine-learning literature on film deposition in semiconductor manufacturing falls into four clusters: process control and optimization, defect image recognition and classification, tool preventive maintenance and anomaly detection, and ALD precursor finding. It then argues that the dominant limitations across clusters are not purely algorithmic but structural: PDE-based models oversimplify surface chemistry, process parameters resist interpretation, data are sparse and expensive, and models do not generalize beyond the conditions they were trained on. The proposed resolution is to embed physical laws into neural networks so that predictions are constrained by known physics rather than learned purely from data. For PINNs to work in this setting, the paper contends, the central technical problem is balancing the PDE residual loss against boundary and data losses; it reviews the two families of remedies, loss reweighting (gradient annealing, inverse Dirichlet weighting, self-adaptive masks, minimax formulations) and adaptive collocation-point resampling (quasi-random sequences, importance sampling, deep generative samplers). If the argument is right, the payoff is process control that needs less labeled data and is more trustworthy when extrapolating to new process conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The review's conclusions depend on the assumption that the cited studies in Sections 3.1-3.4 and Tables 1-3 fairly represent the broader literature and are summarized accurately, since no search strategy, inclusion criteria, or quality assessment is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher entering the area gets a ready-made map: process control and optimization, defect image recognition, tool maintenance and anomaly detection, and ALD precursor finding, each with representative model families and reported results.
  • If PINN-based physics constraints work as argued, deposition models can be trained with far fewer wafer runs, since the PDE residual supplies information that labeled data would otherwise have to provide.
  • The loss-reweighting and adaptive-sampling techniques surveyed for benchmark PDE problems are the practical entry point for building deposition-specific PINNs.
  • Combining PINNs with graph neural networks and continuous graph networks is proposed as the route to spatial-temporal process models that fuse multimodal fab data with physical constraints.
  • The review implies that machine learning should be repositioned from a single-task predictor to a system-level decision integrator for routine fab operations, an underexplored direction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors stop short of saying it, but the framework implies the need for a standard benchmark: a public deposition PDE model, such as a CVD boundary-layer or ALD surface-reaction model, with shared data so that loss-weighting and sampling methods can be compared on equal footing.
  • A testable extension of the taxonomy is to run a formal systematic search with explicit inclusion criteria; if most papers still fall into the four categories, the review's structure is validated, and if not, the map needs revision.
  • The physics-constrained agenda could apply to adjacent fab processes the paper mentions only in passing (etching, lithography, and thermal processing), where the same data-sparsity and interpretability problems occur.
  • For practitioners, the strongest implicit message is that the bottleneck is not network architecture but loss engineering: choosing how to balance PDE, boundary, and data terms may matter more than network depth.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a review of machine learning and deep learning applications in semiconductor film deposition, with a focus on the potential of physics-informed neural networks (PINNs). The authors propose a four-category taxonomy of existing work: (1) process control and optimization, (2) defect image recognition and classification, (3) tool preventative maintenance and anomaly detection, and (4) atomic layer deposition (ALD) precursor finding. They also survey PINN loss-weighting and adaptive sampling techniques and propose future research directions that integrate PINNs with graph neural networks and system-level decision making.

Significance. If the taxonomy and literature survey are reliable, the paper would provide a useful structured entry point for researchers seeking to apply physics-informed machine learning to film deposition. The PINN methodology summary (Section 4) is generally accurate and correctly cites foundational works on loss reweighting (e.g., Wang et al., Maddu et al., McClenny et al.) and adaptive sampling (Nabian et al., Katharopoulos et al., Tang et al.), with equations that match the original sources. The proposed future directions (Section 5) are plausible and align with current trends in physics-informed machine learning. The paper does not introduce new numerical results, and its claims are explicitly descriptive rather than predictive, so there is no circularity concern.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Table 3] The 'ALD Precursor Finding' category is supported by exactly one cited study, [28] (Xie et al., J. Chem. Inf. Model. 64(7):2746–2759). The paper's own description of [28] says it develops SSNet, a model for extracting and classifying expert opinions about challenges and opportunities in energy materials from scientific literature. Nothing in the reference's title, venue, or the paper's summary connects it to ALD precursor identification. Since this is the only entry in the fourth category, the category is effectively empty, and the claim in Section 1 and the abstract of a 'comprehensive review' organized into four thematic areas is not supported as written.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] Reference [37] is a duplicate of reference [32]: both are Cho, Shao, and Mesbah, 'Run-indexed time-varying Bayesian optimization with positional encoding for auto-tuning of controllers: Application to a plasma-assisted deposition process with run-to-run drifts', Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 185, p. 108653 (2024). The sentence citing '[30, 37]' as 'novel data-driven modeling frameworks combining Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and ANNs' therefore cites the same study twice, so the paragraph contains one fewer independent supporting study than advertised. This duplication undermines the credibility of the survey's reference handling.
  3. [Section 1 and Section 3] The paper repeatedly describes the review as 'comprehensive' (Abstract, Section 1, Section 3) but provides no search protocol, inclusion criteria, database list, or quality assessment. Without a stated methodology, the reader cannot assess whether the four-category taxonomy is representative of the broader literature or reflects a selective sample. The incorrect ALD category and the duplicate reference compound this concern. The authors should either add a transparent methodology section or reposition the paper as a scoping review with explicit limitations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5] The text says 'A summary of the reviewed DL studies in film deposition is provided in Tables 1–4,' but the manuscript contains only three tables (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Please correct the cross-reference and ensure the table numbering matches the narrative.
  2. [Section 4.1.1, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) defines the loss as L = J + w_f L_f + w_B L_B + w_h L_h, but the subsequent sentence says 'L_f, L_B, and L_d represent the PDE residual loss, boundary condition loss, and data loss, respectively.' The symbol L_d does not appear in the equation, and L_h is not described. Please align the notation.
  3. [References] The reference list contains inconsistent formatting, including incomplete entries (e.g., Ref. [8] with an incomplete author list and odd punctuation) and at least one duplicate as noted in Major Comment 2. A thorough editorial pass is needed.
  4. [Section 5] The future-directions section mentions 'Continuous Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs)' but the cited Ref. [62] is a survey on causal graph neural networks; the connection between CGNNs and causality is not elaborated enough to justify the claim that CGNNs 'introduce causal inference capabilities' in this context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a literature review that summarizes external prior work and derives no predictions from fitted inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a literature review rather than a derivation or prediction study. Its central claims—the four-category taxonomy in Section 3, the PINN methodology review in Section 4, and the future directions in Section 5—are presented explicitly as summaries of cited prior work. The paper introduces no fitted parameters, no new predictive quantities, and no derivation chain whose output is equivalent to its input. The PINN loss function equations (1)–(8) are standard formulations attributed to external references [44, 47, 43], and the loss-weighting and adaptive-resampling formulas are attributed to external sources [48, 49, 50, 51, 58, 59, 60]. None of these steps is justified by a self-citation, and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem from its own authors to force a conclusion. The internal inconsistencies noted by a skeptic—such as reference [37] duplicating [32], reference [28] appearing unrelated to ALD precursor finding despite anchoring Section 3.4, and the text saying 'Tables 1–4' when only three tables appear—are legitimate concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the literature review, but they are not circularity. The review's statements are retrospective summaries of external work, not predictions derived from its own assumptions. Therefore no circular reasoning is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

No free parameters, no invented entities, and no new derivations appear because the paper is a review. The axioms below are assumptions carried from the reviewed literature and the paper's motivation; they are not validated by new experiments in this paper.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math The PINN loss formulations in equations (3) and (8) are valid representations of forward and inverse problems.
    Reproduced from cited references [44,47] without independent derivation; the review's explanations rely on these formulations.
  • domain assumption Current PDE-based models cannot comprehensively describe CVD reactions on wafer surfaces.
    Used in Section 3.5 to motivate PINNs; no comparative evidence is presented inside the paper.
  • domain assumption Embedding physics constraints into neural networks improves generalization and robustness when data are sparse.
    Stated in Section 4 and relied on for future directions; supported by the cited PINN literature but not demonstrated for film deposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Informed Neural Networks For Semiconductor Film Deposition: A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGKFXOSQ

@misc{pith2026250710983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Informed Neural Networks For Semiconductor Film Deposition: A Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGKFXOSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10983}
}
read the original abstract

Semiconductor manufacturing relies heavily on film deposition processes, such as Chemical Vapor Deposition and Physical Vapor Deposition. These complex processes require precise control to achieve film uniformity, proper adhesion, and desired functionality. Recent advancements in Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs), an innovative machine learning (ML) approach, have shown significant promise in addressing challenges related to process control, quality assurance, and predictive modeling within semiconductor film deposition and other manufacturing domains. This paper provides a comprehensive review of ML applications targeted at semiconductor film deposition processes. Through a thematic analysis, we identify key trends, existing limitations, and research gaps, offering insights into both the advantages and constraints of current methodologies. Our structured analysis aims to highlight the potential integration of these ML techniques to enhance interpretability, accuracy, and robustness in film deposition processes. Additionally, we examine state-of-the-art PINN methods, discussing strategies for embedding physical knowledge, governing laws, and partial differential equations into advanced neural network architectures tailored for semiconductor manufacturing. Based on this detailed review, we propose novel research directions that integrate the strengths of PINNs to significantly advance film deposition processes. The contributions of this study include establishing a clear pathway for future research in integrating physics-informed ML frameworks, addressing existing methodological gaps, and ultimately improving precision, scalability, and operational efficiency within semiconductor manufacturing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Xie, T., Wan, Y ., Wang, H., Østrøm, I., Wang, S., He, M., Deng, R., Wu, X., Grazian, C., Kit, C., and Hoex, B.,

    work page

  2. [37]

    Cho, K., Shao, K., and Mesbah, A., 2024. “Run-indexed time-varying bayesian optimization with positional encod- ing for auto-tuning of controllers: Application to a plasma- assisted deposition process with run-to-run drifts”. Com- puters & Chemical Engineering, 185, p. 108653

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    N., 2012

    El-Kareh, B., and Hutter, L. N., 2012. Fundamentals of semiconductor processing technology. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2012

  4. [2]

    N., 2012, page 88, Chapter 3.1

    El-Kareh, B., and Hutter, L. N., 2012, page 88, Chapter 3.1. Fundamentals of semiconductor processing technol- ogy. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2012

  5. [3]

    N., 2012, page 135, Chapter 3.3

    El-Kareh, B., and Hutter, L. N., 2012, page 135, Chapter 3.3. Fundamentals of semiconductor processing technol- ogy. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2012

  6. [4]

    Handbook of thin film deposition

    Seshan, K., and Schepis, D., 2018. Handbook of thin film deposition. William Andrew

    work page 2018

  7. [5]

    F., Butler, S

    Edgar, T. F., Butler, S. W., Campbell, W., Pfeiffer, C., Bode, C., Hwang, S. B., Balakrishnan, K., and Hahn, J.,

    work page

  8. [6]

    What is machine learning?

    Bell, J., 2022. “What is machine learning?”. Machine learning and the city: applications in architecture and ur- ban design, pp. 207–216

    work page 2022

Show all 66 references
  1. [7]

    D., 2019

    Kelleher, J. D., 2019. Deep learning. MIT press

    2019

  2. [8]

    Edited By Ovidiu Vermesan, Chapter authors Cristina De Luca, B. L. W. S. S. A.-B. G. P. A. R. F. P. M. C. R. J., 2021,1st Edition, Chapter AI in Semiconductor In- dustry. Artificial Intelligence for Digitising Industry – Ap- plications. Applications (1st ed.). River Publishers

    2021

  3. [9]

    Physics- informed machine learning

    Karniadakis, G.E., K. I. L. L. e. a., 2021. “Physics- informed machine learning”. Nature Reviews Physics, 3, pp. 422–440

    2021

  4. [10]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems in- volving nonlinear partial differential equations

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., and Karniadakis, G., 2019. “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems in- volving nonlinear partial differential equations”. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, pp. 686–707

    2019

  5. [11]

    Introduction to semiconductor manufactur- ing technology

    Chao, T., 2000. Introduction to semiconductor manufactur- ing technology. Prentice Hall New Jersey

    2000

  6. [12]

    Moore’s law

    Gordon Moore, h.-l., 1965. Moore’s law. Accessed: 2024- 11-05

    1965

  7. [13]

    Euv lithography

    Bakshi, V ., 2009. “Euv lithography”

    2009

  8. [14]

    Introduction to fin- fet: Formation process, strengths, and future exploration

    Ding, H., Yuan, L., and Yin, B., 2022. “Introduction to fin- fet: Formation process, strengths, and future exploration”. In EMIE 2022; The 2nd International Conference on Elec- tronic Materials and Information Engineering, VDE, pp. 1– 7

    2022

  9. [15]

    Finfet ver- sus gate-all-around nanowire fet: Performance, scaling, and variability

    Nagy, D., Indalecio, G., Garc ´ıA-Loureiro, A. J., Elmes- sary, M. A., Kalna, K., and Seoane, N., 2018. “Finfet ver- sus gate-all-around nanowire fet: Performance, scaling, and variability”. IEEE Journal of the Electron Devices Society, 6, pp. 332–340

    2018

  10. [16]

    High-k/metal gate innovations en- abling continued cmos scaling

    Frank, M. M., 2011. “High-k/metal gate innovations en- abling continued cmos scaling”. In 2011 Proceedings of the European Solid-State Device Research Conference (ESS- DERC), IEEE, pp. 25–33

    2011

  11. [17]

    Recent advances and trends in advanced packaging

    Lau, J. H., 2022. “Recent advances and trends in advanced packaging”. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, 12(2), pp. 228–252

    2022

  12. [18]

    Chapter 12 - structure and prop- erties of films

    Sree Harsha, K., 2006. “Chapter 12 - structure and prop- erties of films”. In Principles of Vapor Deposition of Thin Films, K. Sree Harsha, ed. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 961–1072

    2006

  13. [19]

    E., 2000

    Mahan, J. E., 2000. Physical vapor deposition of thin films

    2000

  14. [20]

    Chemical methods of thin film de- position: Chemical vapor deposition, atomic layer depo- sition, and related technologies

    Crowell, J. E., 2003. “Chemical methods of thin film de- position: Chemical vapor deposition, atomic layer depo- sition, and related technologies”. Journal of Vacuum Sci- ence & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films,21(5), pp. S88–S95

    2003

  15. [21]

    Atomic layer deposi- tion and other thin film deposition techniques: from princi- ples to film properties

    Oke, J. A., and Jen, T.-C., 2022. “Atomic layer deposi- tion and other thin film deposition techniques: from princi- ples to film properties”. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 21, pp. 2481–2514

    2022

  16. [22]

    Chapter 3 - an overview of deep learning in big data, image, and signal processing in the modern digital age

    Franc ¸a, R. P., Borges Monteiro, A. C., Arthur, R., and Iano, Y ., 2021. “Chapter 3 - an overview of deep learning in big data, image, and signal processing in the modern digital age”. In Trends in Deep Learning Methodologies , V . Pi- uri, S. Raj, A. Genovese, and R. Srivast...

    2021

  17. [23]

    A comprehensive literature review of the applications of ai techniques through the lifecycle of indus- trial equipment

    Elahi, M., Afolaranmi, S. O., Lastra, J. L. M., and Garcia, J. A. P., 2023. “A comprehensive literature review of the applications of ai techniques through the lifecycle of indus- trial equipment”. Discover Artificial Intelligence

    2023

  18. [24]

    Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches to energy demand-side response: A systematic review

    Antonopoulos, I., Robu, V ., Couraud, B., Kirli, D., Norbu, S., Kiprakis, A., Flynn, D., Elizondo-Gonzalez, S., and Wattam, S., 2020. “Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches to energy demand-side response: A systematic review”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy...

    2020

  19. [25]

    Deepsem- net: Enhancing sem defect analysis in semiconductor manufacturing with a dual-branch cnn-transformer archi- tecture

    Qiao, Y ., Mei, Z., Luo, Y ., and Chen, Y ., 2024. “Deepsem- net: Enhancing sem defect analysis in semiconductor manufacturing with a dual-branch cnn-transformer archi- tecture”. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 193, p. 110301

    2024

  20. [26]

    Image-driven machine learning for automatic characterization of grain size and distribution in smart vanadium dioxide thin films

    Zerrouki, N., Zouina Ait-Djafer, A., Harrou, F., Lafane, S., Abdelli-Messaci, S., and Sun, Y ., 2024. “Image-driven machine learning for automatic characterization of grain size and distribution in smart vanadium dioxide thin films”. Measurement, 233, p. 114791

    2024

  21. [27]

    Deep transfer wasserstein adversarial network for wafer map defect recognition

    Yu, J., Li, S., Shen, Z., Wang, S., Liu, C., and Li, Q., 2021. “Deep transfer wasserstein adversarial network for wafer map defect recognition”. Computers & Industrial Engi- neering, 161, p. 107679

    2021

  22. [29]

    Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp

    Burden, F., and Winkler, D., 2009.Bayesian Regularization of Neural Networks. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 23–42

    2009

  23. [30]

    Machine learning-based model- ing and operation for ald of sio2 thin-films using data from a multiscale cfd simulation

    Ding, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Ren, Y . M., Orkoulas, G., and Christofides, P. D., 2019. “Machine learning-based model- ing and operation for ald of sio2 thin-films using data from a multiscale cfd simulation”. Chemical Engineering Re- search and Design, 151, pp. 131–145

    2019

  24. [31]

    Ding, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Orkoulas, G., and Christofides, P. D.,

  25. [33]

    Rachid, G., 2023. “A numerical investigation and optimiza- tion by machine learning for the growth of ingasb crystals with a flatter interface by vertical gradient freezing method under microgravity and normal gravity conditions”. Osaka University

    2023

  26. [34]

    Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey

    Arulkumaran, K., Deisenroth, M. P., Brundage, M., and Bharath, A. A., 2017. “Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey”. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 34(6), pp. 26–38

    2017

  27. [35]

    Exploring machine learning for semiconductor process optimization: A sys- tematic review

    Chen, Y .-L., Sacchi, S., Dey, B., Blanco, V ., Halder, S., Leray, P., and De Gendt, S., 2024. “Exploring machine learning for semiconductor process optimization: A sys- tematic review”. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelli- gence, pp. 1–21

    2024

  28. [36]

    Artifi- cial neural network discrimination for parameter estimation and optimal product design of thin films manufactured by chemical vapor deposition

    Kimaev, G., and Ricardez-Sandoval, L. A., 2020. “Artifi- cial neural network discrimination for parameter estimation and optimal product design of thin films manufactured by chemical vapor deposition”.The Journal of Physical Chem- istry C, 124(34), pp. 18615–18627

    2020

  29. [38]

    Optimizing the chemical vapor deposition process of 4h–sic epitaxial layer growth with machine-learning-assisted multiphysics simulations

    Tang, Z., Zhao, S., Li, J., Zuo, Y ., Tian, J., Tang, H., Fan, J., and Zhang, G., 2024. “Optimizing the chemical vapor deposition process of 4h–sic epitaxial layer growth with machine-learning-assisted multiphysics simulations”. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 59, p. 104507

    2024

  30. [39]

    When magnetron sput- tering deposition meets machine learning: Application to process anomaly detection

    Delchevalerie, V ., de Moor, N., Rassinfosse, L., Haye, E., Frenay, B., and Lucas, S., 2024. “When magnetron sput- tering deposition meets machine learning: Application to process anomaly detection”. Surface and Coatings Tech- nology, 477, p. 130301

    2024

  31. [40]

    A contextual sensor system for non-intrusive machine status and energy monitoring

    Ren, Y ., and Li, G.-P., 2022. “A contextual sensor system for non-intrusive machine status and energy monitoring”. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 62, pp. 87–101

    2022

  32. [41]

    Accelerating power flow calcu- lations in lv networks using physics-informed graph neural networks

    Azam, F., et al., 2024. “Accelerating power flow calcu- lations in lv networks using physics-informed graph neural networks”. In 2024 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Tech- nologies Europe (ISGT EUROPE), IEEE

    2024

  33. [42]

    Physical activation functions (pafs): An approach for more efficient induction of physics into physics-informed neural networks (pinns)

    Abbasi, J., and Andersen, P. ., 2024. “Physical activation functions (pafs): An approach for more efficient induction of physics into physics-informed neural networks (pinns)”. Neurocomputing, 608, p. 128352

    2024

  34. [43]

    Physics-informed machine learning: A survey on problems, methods and applications

    Hao, Z., et al., 2022. “Physics-informed machine learning: A survey on problems, methods and applications”. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2211.08064

    2022 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next

    Cuomo, S., et al., 2022. “Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next”. Journal of Scientific Computing, 92(3), p. 88

    2022

  36. [45]

    Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations

    Raissi, M., Yazdani, A., and Karniadakis, G. E., 2020. “Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations”. Science, 367(6481), pp. 1026–1030

    2020

  37. [46]

    Physics-informed deep neural networks for learning parameters and consti- tutive relationships in subsurface flow problems

    Tartakovsky, A. M., Marrero, Y ., Kecojevic, B. T., Yu- dovich, I. B., and Bauer, P. D., 2020. “Physics-informed deep neural networks for learning parameters and consti- tutive relationships in subsurface flow problems”. Water Resources Research, 56(5), p. e2019WR026731

    2020

  38. [47]

    Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Y ., and Karniadakis, G. E.,

  39. [48]

    Understand- ing and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics- informed neural networks

    Wang, S., Teng, Y ., and Perdikaris, P., 2021. “Understand- ing and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics- informed neural networks”. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43(5), pp. A3055–A3081

    2021

  40. [49]

    L., and Sbalzarini, I

    Maddu, S., Sturm, D., M ¨uller, C. L., and Sbalzarini, I. F.,

  41. [50]

    Self- adaptive physics-informed neural networks

    McClenny, L. D., and Braga-Neto, U. M., 2023. “Self- adaptive physics-informed neural networks”. Journal of Computational Physics, 474, p. 111722

    2023

  42. [51]

    A dual-dimer method for training physics-constrained neural networks with minimax architecture

    Liu, D., and Wang, Y ., 2021. “A dual-dimer method for training physics-constrained neural networks with minimax architecture”. Neural Networks, 136, pp. 112–125

    2021

  43. [52]

    The distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals

    Sobol, I. M., 1967. “The distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals”. USSR Computa- tional Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 7, pp. 86– 112

    1967

  44. [53]

    On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi- dimensional integrals

    Halton, J. H., 1960. “On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi- dimensional integrals”. Numerische Mathematik, 2, pp. 84–90

    1960

  45. [54]

    Monte carlo methods for solv- ing multivariable problems

    Hammersley, J. M., 1960. “Monte carlo methods for solv- ing multivariable problems”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 86(3), pp. 844–874

    1960

  46. [55]

    A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code

    McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., and Conover, W. J., 2000. “A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code”. Technometrics, 42(1), pp. 55–61

    2000

  47. [56]

    Not all sam- ples are created equal: Deep learning with importance sam- pling

    Katharopoulos, A., and Fleuret, F., 2018. “Not all sam- ples are created equal: Deep learning with importance sam- pling”. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), PMLR, pp. 2525–2534

    2018

  48. [57]

    Variance reduction in sgd by distributed importance sampling

    Alain, G., et al., 2015. “Variance reduction in sgd by distributed importance sampling”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06481

    2015 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Efficient training of physics-informed neural networks via importance sampling

    Nabian, M. A., Gladstone, R. J., and Meidani, H., 2021. “Efficient training of physics-informed neural networks via importance sampling”. Computer-Aided Civil and Infras- tructure Engineering, 36(8), pp. 962–977

    2021

  50. [59]

    Biased impor- tance sampling for deep neural network training

    Katharopoulos, A., and Fleuret, F., 2017. “Biased impor- tance sampling for deep neural network training”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.00043

    2017 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Das-pinns: A deep adaptive sampling method for solving high-dimensional partial differential equations

    Tang, K., Wan, X., and Yang, C., 2023. “Das-pinns: A deep adaptive sampling method for solving high-dimensional partial differential equations”. Journal of Computational Physics, 476, p. 111868

    2023

  52. [61]

    Generative ad- versarial networks: An overview

    Creswell, A., White, T., Dumoulin, V ., Arulkumaran, K., Sengupta, B., and Bharath, A. A., 2018. “Generative ad- versarial networks: An overview”. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 35(1), pp. 53–65

    2018

  53. [62]

    When graph neu- ral network meets causality: Opportunities, methodologies and an outlook

    Jiang, W., Liu, H., and Xiong, H., 2023. “When graph neu- ral network meets causality: Opportunities, methodologies and an outlook”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12477

    2023 arXiv

  54. [2000]

    Automatic control in microelectronics manufactur- ing: Practices, challenges, and possibilities

    “Automatic control in microelectronics manufactur- ing: Practices, challenges, and possibilities”. Automatica, 36(11), pp. 1567–1603

  55. [2020]

    Microscopic modeling and optimal operation of plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition

    “Microscopic modeling and optimal operation of plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition”. Chemical En- gineering Research and Design, 159, pp. 439–454

  56. [2021]

    Physics-informed neural networks with hard con- straints for inverse design

    “Physics-informed neural networks with hard con- straints for inverse design”. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43(6), pp. B1105–B1132

  57. [2023]

    Inverse dirichlet weighting enables reliable train- ing of physics-informed neural networks

    “Inverse dirichlet weighting enables reliable train- ing of physics-informed neural networks”. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2301.00000. Available athttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2301.00000

  58. [2024]

    Opinion mining by convolutional neural networks for maximizing discoverability of nanomaterials

    “Opinion mining by convolutional neural networks for maximizing discoverability of nanomaterials”. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(7), pp. 2746–

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.