Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 54 references

A Systematic Benchmark of Physics-Informed Neural Network Architectures for the Stiff Poisson-Nernst-Planck System: Adaptive LossWeighting and Multi-Scale Resolution

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The balanced residual decay rate scheme matches neural tangent kernel accuracy on concentration fields for stiff Poisson-Nernst-Planck problems while cutting wall-clock time.

desk verdict The paper runs the first systematic benchmark of eleven PINN configs on a 1D lithium-cell PNP model and finds BRDR matches NTK accuracy on concentrations at lower wall-clock cost. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.04125 v1 pith:5A6LZU6F submitted 2026-06-02 physics.app-ph math-phmath.MPphysics.comp-ph

David Pankaczy , Conrard Giresse Tetsassi Feugmo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phmath-phmath.MPphysics.comp-ph
keywords physics-informedneuralnetworksPoisson-Nernst-Planckstiffsystemsadaptivelossweightingtangentkernelbenchmarklithiumsymmetriccellelectricdoublelayer
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 establishes the first systematic benchmark of eleven physics-informed neural network configurations grouped into four strategy families on a one-dimensional Poisson-Nernst-Planck model of a lithium symmetric cell. It reports that the balanced residual decay rate scheme reaches neural tangent kernel performance on concentration profiles yet requires less mean computation time, with loss-landscape geometry aligning with the root-mean-square error ordering. A sympathetic reader would care because the Poisson-Nernst-Planck system is a canonical stiff coupled problem whose extreme coefficient ratios and thin electric-double-layer boundary layers defeat both conventional meshes and standard neural training due to spectral bias and multi-task loss imbalance. The work supplies an open-source implementation inside PhysicsNeMo Sym for reuse on similar stiff electrokinetic systems.

What carries the argument

The balanced residual decay rate (BRDR) scheme, which dynamically reweights individual loss terms according to the observed decay rates of their residuals to counteract multi-task imbalance during training of physics-informed networks on stiff coupled PDEs.

What would settle it

A repeat of the eleven-configuration benchmark on a two-dimensional PNP geometry or a materially different physical parameter set in which the BRDR scheme no longer matches NTK accuracy on concentrations or loses its wall-clock advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Among the tested architectures the balanced residual decay rate scheme matches neural tangent kernel performance for concentration fields while reducing mean wall-clock time, making it the preferable strategy under compute constraints; root-mean-square errors vary across the eleven configurations and loss-landscape geometry corroborates the ranking.

Load-bearing premise

The eleven PINN configurations organized into four strategy groups, the one-dimensional physically parametrised PNP model for a lithium symmetric cell, and the finite volume method reference are representative enough to rank architectures for general stiff PNP problems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BRDR becomes the strategy of choice when wall-clock time is the binding constraint for concentration-field accuracy.
  • Loss-landscape geometry supplies an independent diagnostic that tracks RMSE rankings across architectures.
  • The released PhysicsNeMo Sym implementation can be applied directly to other stiff coupled PDE problems in computational mechanics.
  • Adaptive loss-weighting strategies mitigate the multi-task imbalance that otherwise limits PINN accuracy on stiff PNP systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The time advantage of BRDR may extend to other multi-physics stiff systems whose loss terms decay at mismatched rates.
  • A two-dimensional or three-dimensional version of the same benchmark would test whether the observed ranking survives increased spatial complexity.
  • Open release of the code lowers the threshold for testing PINNs on electrokinetic transport in batteries, membranes, and biological ion channels.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper conducts the first systematic benchmark of eleven PINN configurations grouped into four strategy groups for solving the stiff one-dimensional Poisson-Nernst-Planck equations modeling a lithium symmetric cell. Implemented in NVIDIA PhysicsNeMo Sym and validated against a finite volume method reference, the study concludes that the balanced residual decay rate (BRDR) scheme achieves performance comparable to the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) approach for concentration fields while reducing mean wall-clock time, making it preferable under compute constraints. Loss landscape analysis supports the RMSE rankings, and the code is released openly.

Significance. If the empirical findings hold, this work provides valuable guidance on loss-weighting and multi-scale strategies for PINNs applied to stiff coupled PDEs like PNP systems. The open-source PhysicsNeMo Sym implementation is a clear strength, enabling reproducibility and extension to other computational mechanics problems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states that RMSE spans architectures and that BRDR matches NTK while lowering wall-clock time, but supplies no numerical values, error bars, data exclusion criteria, or validation details against the FVM reference. This absence makes it impossible to assess the magnitude or statistical reliability of the claimed match.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The recommendation that BRDR is the preferable strategy under compute constraints rests entirely on results from a one-dimensional physically parametrized lithium symmetric cell. No experiments or discussion address whether the relative performance of BRDR versus NTK persists when the electric double layer becomes a surface in 2D/3D or when stiffness regimes and collocation requirements change.
minor comments (1)
  1. The four strategy groups and eleven configurations would benefit from an explicit summary table listing each architecture, its loss-weighting or multi-scale component, and key hyperparameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states that RMSE spans architectures and that BRDR matches NTK while lowering wall-clock time, but supplies no numerical values, error bars, data exclusion criteria, or validation details against the FVM reference. This absence makes it impossible to assess the magnitude or statistical reliability of the claimed match.

    Authors: The abstract is intended as a concise overview. The manuscript provides full numerical RMSE values, standard deviations across runs, explicit comparison criteria against the FVM reference, and loss-landscape diagnostics in the results section and supplementary tables. To improve standalone readability of the abstract we will insert representative quantitative values (e.g., mean RMSE for concentration fields under BRDR and NTK) together with a brief statement on the validation protocol. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The recommendation that BRDR is the preferable strategy under compute constraints rests entirely on results from a one-dimensional physically parametrized lithium symmetric cell. No experiments or discussion address whether the relative performance of BRDR versus NTK persists when the electric double layer becomes a surface in 2D/3D or when stiffness regimes and collocation requirements change.

    Authors: The study is deliberately scoped to a canonical one-dimensional stiff PNP problem to enable a controlled, systematic comparison of eleven architectures. The manuscript makes no claim of dimensional generality; the recommendation is explicitly tied to the 1-D lithium-symmetric-cell setting under the reported stiffness and collocation conditions. Extending the benchmark to 2-D/3-D geometries constitutes a substantial separate investigation that lies outside the present scope. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical benchmark with independent FVM validation; no derivation reduces to inputs

full rationale

The manuscript reports a numerical benchmark of eleven PINN loss-weighting and multi-scale configurations on a fixed 1D lithium-symmetric-cell PNP problem. All performance claims (RMSE rankings, wall-clock times, loss-landscape geometry) are obtained by direct comparison against an external finite-volume reference solution. No equation is derived from first principles, no parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity score.

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

The work is a numerical benchmarking study and introduces no new physical parameters, axioms, or postulated entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Benchmark of Physics-Informed Neural Network Architectures for the Stiff Poisson-Nernst-Planck System: Adaptive LossWeighting and Multi-Scale Resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5A6LZU6F

@misc{pith2026260604125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Benchmark of Physics-Informed Neural Network Architectures for the Stiff Poisson-Nernst-Planck System: Adaptive LossWeighting and Multi-Scale Resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5A6LZU6F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.04125}
}
read the original abstract

The Poisson Nernst Planck PNP system constitutes a canonical stiff coupled PDE problem where the charge density prefactor produces extreme coefficient ratios and the electric double layer imposes sharp boundary layers. Physics informed neural networks PINNs are appealing here because they require no mesh and differentiate through the physics automatically. Spectral bias and multi task loss imbalance however have limited their accuracy on stiff PNP systems. We present the first systematic data free benchmark of eleven PINN configurations organised into four strategy groups on a physically parametrised one dimensional PNP model for a lithium symmetric cell implemented within NVIDIA PhysicsNeMo Sym and validated against a finite volume method FVM reference. Root mean square errors RMSE span across architectures. The balanced residual decay rate BRDR scheme matches Neural Tangent Kernel NTK performance for concentration fields while reducing mean wall clock time making it the preferable strategy under compute constraints. Loss landscape geometry corroborates the RMSE ranking. We release an open source PhysicsNeMo Sym implementation for reuse on stiff coupled PDE problems in computational mechanics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04125 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the one-dimensional lithium symmetric cell. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PhysicsNeMo Sym computational pipeline. Halton collocation points are fed to the neural network architecture (left); automatic differentiation (AD) through the Graph computes PDE, boundary condition (BC), and initial condition (IC) residuals (centre-left); Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) or balanced residual decay rate (BRDR) adaptive weighting rescales individual loss components before aggregation to total loss L (cent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NTK-weighted PINN validation against the FVM reference. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NTK-weighted PINN training loss. Total loss (left) and individual loss components (right), averaged over ten independent runs. Individual loss components (PDE: partial differential equation, BC: boundary condition, IC: initial condition) converge at comparable rates th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wall-clock time distributions. Box plots of wall time for the NTK configuration over ten runs (left) and across all architectures (right). The red line marks the median; box edges denote the first and third quartiles; whiskers extend to 1.5× the interquartile range (IQ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Loss landscape geometry for all PINN configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NTK training loss for three collocation densities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a survey.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(153):1–43, 2018

    Atılım Güne¸ s Baydin, Barak A Pearlmutter, Alexey Andreyevich Radul, and Jeffrey Mark Siskind. Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a survey.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(153):1–43, 2018. URL https://jmlr.org/papers/v18/17-468.html

    2018

  2. [2]

    Physical Review E , author =

    Martin Z Bazant, Katsuyo Thornton, and Armand Ajdari. Diffuse-charge dynamics in electrochemical systems. Physical Review E, 70(2):021506, 2004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.021506

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.70.021506 2004

  3. [3]

    Monte carlo and quasi-monte carlo methods.Acta Numerica, 7:1–49, 1998

    Russel E Caflisch. Monte carlo and quasi-monte carlo methods.Acta Numerica, 7:1–49, 1998. doi: 10.1017/ S0962492900002804

    1998

  4. [4]

    Howard, and Panos Stinis

    Wenqian Chen, Amanda A. Howard, and Panos Stinis. Self-adaptive weights based on balanced residual decay rate for physics-informed neural networks and deep operator networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 542:114226,

  5. [5]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114226

    ISSN 0021-9991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114226. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0021999125005091

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114226 2025

  6. [6]

    Sepa- rable physics-informed neural networks

    Junwoo Cho, Seungtae Nam, Hyunmo Yang, Seok-Bae Yun, Youngjoon Hong, and Eunbyung Park. Sepa- rable physics-informed neural networks. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 23761–23788. Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2023. URL https://proceedings.neuri...

    2023

  7. [7]

    Scientific Machine Learning Through Physics–Informed Neural Networks: Where we are and What’s Next

    Salvatore Cuomo, Vincenzo Schiano Di Cola, Fabio Giampaolo, Gianluigi Rozza, Maziar Raissi, and Francesco Piccialli. Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next. Journal of Scientific Computing, 92(3):88, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10915-022-01939-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-022-01939-z 2022

  8. [8]

    Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function

    George Cybenko. Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function.Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, 2(4):303–314, 1989. doi: 10.1007/BF02551274

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02551274 1989

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Ion transport in nanofluidic channels.Nano Letters, 4(1): 137–142, 2004

    Hirofumi Daiguji, Peidong Yang, and Arun Majumdar. Ion transport in nanofluidic channels.Nano Letters, 4(1): 137–142, 2004. doi: 10.1021/nl0348185

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    Error analysis for physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) approximating Kolmogorov PDEs.Advances in Computational Mathematics, 48(6):79, 2022

    Tim De Ryck and Siddhartha Mishra. Error analysis for physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) approximating Kolmogorov PDEs.Advances in Computational Mathematics, 48(6):79, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10444-022-09985-9

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Multilevel domain decomposition- based architectures for physics-informed neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 429:117116, 2024

    Victorita Dolean, Alexander Heinlein, Siddhartha Mishra, and Ben Moseley. Multilevel domain decomposition- based architectures for physics-informed neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 429:117116, 2024. ISSN 0045-7825. doi: https://doi.org/10....

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    The deep Ritz method: a deep learning-based numerical algorithm for solving variational problems.Communications in Mathematics and Statistics, 6(1):1–12, 2018

    Weinan E and Bing Yu. The deep Ritz method: a deep learning-based numerical algorithm for solving variational problems.Communications in Mathematics and Statistics, 6(1):1–12, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s40304-018-0127-z

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Computing the field in proteins and channels.Journal of Membrane Biology, 150(1):1–25,

    Robert S Eisenberg. Computing the field in proteins and channels.Journal of Membrane Biology, 150(1):1–25,

  6. [14]

    doi: 10.1007/s002329900026

    doi

  7. [15]

    A physics-informed deep learning framework for inversion and surrogate modeling in solid mechanics.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 379:113741, 2021

    Ehsan Haghighat, Maziar Raissi, Adrian Moure, Hector Gomez, and Ruben Juanes. A physics-informed deep learning framework for inversion and surrogate modeling in solid mechanics.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 379:113741, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2021.113741

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals.Numerische Mathematik, 2(1):84–90, 1960

    John H Halton. On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals.Numerische Mathematik, 2(1):84–90, 1960. doi: 10.1007/BF01386213

    1960 doi

  9. [17]

    Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on ImageNet classification

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on ImageNet classification. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1026–1034, 2015. doi: 10.1109/ICCV .2015.123

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approxi- mators.Neural Networks, 2(5):359–366, 1989

    Kurt Hornik, Maxwell Stinchcombe, and Halbert White. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approxi- mators.Neural Networks, 2(5):359–366, 1989. doi: 10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    Enriched physics-informed neural networks for dynamic poisson-nernst-planck systems.Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 237:231–246, 2025

    Xujia Huang, Fajie Wang, Benrong Zhang, and Hanqing Liu. Enriched physics-informed neural networks for dynamic poisson-nernst-planck systems.Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 237:231–246, 2025. ISSN 0378-4754. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2025.04.037. URL https...

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    M. F. Hutchinson. A stochastic estimator of the trace of the influence matrix for Laplacian smooth- ing splines.Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation, 18(3):1059–1076, 1989. doi: 10.1080/03610918908812806

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks

    Arthur Jacot, Franck Gabriel, and Clément Hongler. Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 31, pages 8571–8580, 2018. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2018/hash/ 5a4be1fa34e...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Ameya D Jagtap and George Em Karniadakis. Conservative physics-informed neural networks on discrete domains for conservation laws: Applications to forward and inverse problems.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 365:113028, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113028

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996

    Joseph W Jerome.Analysis of Charge Transport: A Mathematical Study of Semiconductor Devices. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-79987-7

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

    Physics- informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    George Em Karniadakis, Ioannis G Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, and Liu Yang. Physics- informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics

    Alex Kendall, Yarin Gal, and Roberto Cipolla. Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7482–7491, 2018. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00781

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2014

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2014. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networks

    Aditi Krishnapriyan, Amir Gholami, Shandian Zhe, Robert Kirby, and Michael W Mahoney. Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 26548–26560, 2021. URL https://proceedings.neu...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Artificial neural networks for solving ordinary and partial differential equations.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 9(5):987–1000, 1998

    Isaac E Lagaris, Aristidis Likas, and Dimitrios I Fotiadis. Artificial neural networks for solving ordinary and partial differential equations.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 9(5):987–1000, 1998. doi: 10.1109/72.712178

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    Visualizing the loss landscape of neural nets

    Hao Li, Zheng Xu, Gavin Taylor, Christoph Studer, and Tom Goldstein. Visualizing the loss landscape of neural nets. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 31, pages 6389–6399, 2018. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2018/hash/ a41b3bb3e6b050b6c906...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hou, and Max Tegmark

    Ziming Liu, Yixuan Wang, Sachin Vaidya, Fabian Ruehle, James Halverson, Marin Soljaˇci´c, Thomas Y . Hou, and Max Tegmark. Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19756

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equations.SIAM Review, 63(1):208–228, 2021

    Lu Lu, Xuhui Meng, Zhiping Mao, and George Em Karniadakis. DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equations.SIAM Review, 63(1):208–228, 2021. doi: 10.1137/19M1274067

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    The old and the new: Can physics-informed deep-learning replace traditional linear solvers? Frontiers in Big Data, 4:669097, 2021

    Stefano Markidis. The old and the new: Can physics-informed deep-learning replace traditional linear solvers? Frontiers in Big Data, 4:669097, 2021. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2021.669097. 19 A Systematic Benchmark of Physics-Informed Neural Network Architectures for the Stiff Poisson...

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Self-adaptive physics-informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 474:111722, 2023

    Levi D McClenny and Ulisses M Braga-Neto. Self-adaptive physics-informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 474:111722, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.111722

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Siddhartha Mishra and Roberto Molinaro. Estimates on the generalization error of physics-informed neural networks for approximating a class of inverse problems for PDEs.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 42(2): 981–1022, 2022. doi: 10.1093/imanum/drab032

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Estimates on the generalization error of physics-informed neural networks for approximating PDEs.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 43(1):1–43, 2023

    Siddhartha Mishra and Roberto Molinaro. Estimates on the generalization error of physics-informed neural networks for approximating PDEs.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 43(1):1–43, 2023. doi: 10.1093/imanum/ drac032

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Ben Moseley, Andrew Markham, and Tarje Nissen-Meyer. Finite basis physics-informed neural networks (FBPINNs): a scalable domain decomposition approach for solving differential equations.Advances in Computa- tional Mathematics, 49(4):62, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10444-023-10065-9

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 3rd edition, 2004

    John Newman and Karen E Thomas-Alyea.Electrochemical Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 3rd edition, 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    PhysicsNeMo Sym: An open-source framework for physics-informed machine learning

    NVIDIA Corporation. PhysicsNeMo Sym: An open-source framework for physics-informed machine learning. https://github.com/NVIDIA/physicsnemo, 2024. Accessed: 2025

    2024

  31. [39]

    Hamprecht, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville

    Nasim Rahaman, Aristide Baratin, Devansh Arpit, Felix Draxler, Min Lin, Fred A. Hamprecht, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. On the spectral bias of neural networks, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08734

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019. ISSN 0021-9991. doi: htt...

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    On the convergence of physics informed neural networks for linear second-order elliptic and parabolic type PDEs.Communications in Computational Physics, 28 (5):2042–2074, 2020

    Yeonjong Shin, Jérôme Darbon, and George Em Karniadakis. On the convergence of physics informed neural networks for linear second-order elliptic and parabolic type PDEs.Communications in Computational Physics, 28 (5):2042–2074, 2020. doi: 10.4208/cicp.OA-2020-0193

    doi

  34. [42]

    Analysis and simulation of one-dimensional transport models for lithium symmetric cells

    Anudeep Subramaniam, Jixian Chen, Taekyu Jang, Nicholas R Geise, Ryan M Kasse, Michael F Toney, and Venkat R Subramanian. Analysis and simulation of one-dimensional transport models for lithium symmetric cells. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166(15):A3806, 2019. doi: ...

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains

    Matthew Tancik, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Sing- hal, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Jonathan Barron, and Ren Ng. Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. ...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43(5):A3055–A3081, 2021

    Sifan Wang, Yujun Teng, and Paris Perdikaris. Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43(5):A3055–A3081, 2021. doi: 10.1137/20M1318043

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deeponets.Science Advances, 7(40):eabi8605, 2021

    Sifan Wang, Hanwen Wang, and Paris Perdikaris. Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deeponets.Science Advances, 7(40):eabi8605, 2021. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abi8605. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.abi8605

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Sifan Wang, Hanwen Wang, and Paris Perdikaris. On the eigenvector bias of fourier feature networks: From regression to solving multi-scale PDEs with physics-informed neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 384:113938, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2021.113938

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    When and why pinns fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspective

    Sifan Wang, Xinling Yu, and Paris Perdikaris. When and why pinns fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspective. Journal of Computational Physics, 449:110768, 2022. ISSN 0021-9991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021. 110768. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    Yizheng Wang, Jia Sun, Jinshuai Bai, Cosmin Anitescu, Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi, Xiaoying Zhuang, Timon Rabczuk, and Yinghua Liu. Kolmogorov–arnold-informed neural network: A physics-informed deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems based on kolmogorov–ar...

    2025 doi

  41. [50]

    Dendrites and pits: Untangling the complex behavior of lithium metal anodes through operando video microscopy.ACS Cent Sci, 2(11):790–801, October 2016

    Kevin N Wood, Eric Kazyak, Alexander F Chadwick, Kuan-Hung Chen, Ji-Guang Zhang, Katsuyo Thornton, and Neil P Dasgupta. Dendrites and pits: Untangling the complex behavior of lithium metal anodes through operando video microscopy.ACS Cent Sci, 2(11):790–801, October 2016

    2016

  42. [51]

    Chenxi Wu, Min Zhu, Qinyang Tan, Yen Kartha, and Lu Lu. A comprehensive study of non-adaptive and residual-based adaptive sampling for physics-informed neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 403:115671, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2022.115671

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    A finite element iterative solver for a pnp ion channel model with neumann boundary condition and membrane surface charge.Journal of Computational Physics, 423:109915, 2020

    Dexuan Xie and Zhen Chao. A finite element iterative solver for a pnp ion channel model with neumann boundary condition and membrane surface charge.Journal of Computational Physics, 423:109915, 2020. ISSN 0021-

    2020

  44. [53]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0021999120306896

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109915. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0021999120306896

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    Training behavior of deep neural network in frequency domain, 2019

    Zhi-Qin John Xu, Yaoyu Zhang, and Yanyang Xiao. Training behavior of deep neural network in frequency domain, 2019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1807.01251

    2019

  46. [55]

    Adahessian: An adaptive second order optimizer for machine learning.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(12):10665–10673, May 2021

    Zhewei Yao, Amir Gholami, Sheng Shen, Mustafa Mustafa, Kurt Keutzer, and Michael Mahoney. Adahessian: An adaptive second order optimizer for machine learning.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(12):10665–10673, May 2021. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v35i12.1...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.