Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 84 references

Digital food representations let AI predict, generate, and optimize recipes, turning food formulation into a generative science with sustainability and nutrition as design goals.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 02:21 UTC pith:WYNF345S

load-bearing objection Clean, useful roadmap that organizes food AI into a six-capability frame and correctly treats sustainability/nutrition as design objectives; aspirational, not a new result.

arxiv 2607.09529 v1 pith:WYNF345S submitted 2026-07-10 cs.CE

Artificial Intelligence and the Generative Science of Food Formulation

Vahidullah Tac , Ellen Kuhl This is my paper
classification cs.CE
keywords artificial intelligencefood formulationgenerative artificial intelligencecomputational food designsustainable foodspersonalized nutrition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review argues that food formulation is becoming a generative science. New foods have long come from trial-and-error, expert intuition, and slow iteration across a huge space of possible recipes. The authors define a unified framework in which structured digital representations of ingredients, nutrition, flavor, texture, sustainability, and shelf life let artificial intelligence predict properties, discover relationships, generate formulations, organize knowledge, simulate processing and storage, and optimize for multiple goals at once. They show the idea through sustainability and nutrition: generative models can treat environmental impact and dietary quality as explicit design objectives rather than post-hoc scores. A sympathetic reader cares because the same shift that computer-aided design brought to engineering could systematically explore healthier, lower-impact, and more personalized foods instead of sampling only a tiny fraction of what is possible.

Core claim

Once ingredients, nutrition, flavor, texture, sustainability, and shelf life exist as digital representations, artificial intelligence can predict, discover, generate, organize, simulate, and optimize food formulations inside one framework. Food formulation thereby moves from empirical recipe development to computational design, sustainability and nutrition become explicit objectives rather than after-the-fact criteria, and computational food design can become a rigorous scientific discipline.

What carries the argument

The six complementary AI capabilities—predictive, discovery, generative, foundation, world, and agentic—acting on multimodal digital food representations. They turn the hybrid discrete-continuous formulation space into a navigable design space where multi-objective optimization (including Pareto trade-offs among taste, nutrition, sustainability, cost, and manufacturability) becomes feasible.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on having complete, interoperable, and accurate digital data for ingredients, sensory qualities, nutrition, texture, shelf life, and environmental impacts at the scale needed for generative models to design foods that people accept and factories can make.

What would settle it

Build open multimodal benchmarks that jointly include formulation, sensory scores, texture measurements, nutrition, and life-cycle impacts; if the best generative models still fail to produce candidates that match or beat human benchmarks in blinded consumer tests and that pass physical manufacturability checks, the claim that food formulation has become a generative science fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Environmental and nutritional metrics can be optimized during recipe generation instead of scored after a product already exists.
  • Generative models can explore astronomically large ingredient spaces while learning design principles rather than memorizing existing recipes.
  • Open multimodal benchmarks will make predictive and generative food models comparable and reproducible across labs and industry.
  • World models plus agentic systems can close the loop: simulate, design experiments, analyze results, and refine formulations with less trial-and-error.
  • Personalized nutrition can move from population averages to individual requirements while still respecting sensory quality and sustainability constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the framework works, recipe development will look more like materials design: virtual screening of millions of candidates before kitchen or pilot-plant trials.
  • The same digital representations could support pre-market scoring tools that jointly evaluate novel foods for health claims and environmental claims.
  • Without open sensory, texture, and life-cycle datasets, generative food AI will stay concentrated in proprietary platforms, undercutting the open scientific infrastructure the paper calls for.
  • Persistent gaps between instrumental texture and consumer liking imply that hybrid physics-informed models will be needed before generated products reliably win blind tests.

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This perspective defines a unified framework for the generative science of food formulation. It argues that digital representations of ingredients, nutrition, flavor, texture, shelf life, and environmental impact enable AI to predict, discover, generate, organize, simulate, and act, shifting food design from empirical trial-and-error to computational design. The authors map six AI capabilities (predictive, discovery, generative, foundation, world, and agentic models), survey data foundations, and illustrate the framework with sustainability and nutrition, where life-cycle and nutrient metrics become explicit multi-objective design criteria rather than post-hoc scores. They close by listing infrastructure needs: open multimodal benchmarks, unified representations, physics-informed models, transparency, and open science.

Significance. If adopted, the framework would give food science a coherent computational design language analogous to CAD in engineering, and would reframe sustainability and nutrition as optimizable objectives rather than after-the-fact constraints. Strengths include a clear six-capability taxonomy, extensive and correctly attributed use of public resources (USDA FoodData Central, FlavorDB, ComBase, Poore & Nemecek LCA data, Taste of the Industry), and concrete illustrations from the authors’ prior generative-burger and texture studies that make the abstract claims operational. The manuscript is candid about data fragmentation and missing benchmarks, which strengthens rather than weakens its roadmap value for a serious computational-engineering or food-science venue.

minor comments (5)
  1. Several key references (e.g., Tac et al. generative-burger and texture papers, AI4Burgers platform) appear with 2026 dates and arXiv/bioRxiv-style identifiers; ensure final bibliographic entries and DOIs are complete and consistently formatted before production.
  2. Figure 3 (periodic table of burger ingredients) is dense; a short caption note on how the 146-ingredient library was filtered from Food.com and how quantities are encoded would improve readability for non-specialists.
  3. Section 3.5 notes that shelf-life data remain fragmented relative to nutrition and flavor; a brief pointer to any emerging open packaging or predictive-microbiology resources beyond ComBase would balance the survey.
  4. The hybrid discrete–continuous diffusion architecture is described at a high level in §4.2; a single sentence clarifying the multinomial vs. score-based stages (or a pointer to the companion methods paper) would help readers who have not followed the prior work.
  5. Minor typographic consistency: “computa- tional” line break in the generative-science definition box, and occasional spacing around units (m2/year, kg CO2eq) should be standardized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Perspective/roadmap with illustrative self-citations; no load-bearing circular derivation of a claimed prediction or first-principles result.

full rationale

This manuscript is a review/perspective that defines a unified framework for the generative science of food formulation rather than deriving a quantitative prediction or uniqueness theorem from first principles. Its central claim—that digital food representations enable AI to predict, discover, generate, organize, simulate, and optimize, turning sustainability and nutrition into design objectives—is definitional and aspirational, not a fitted or self-referential mathematical result. Concrete illustrations (burger diffusion models, AI4Burgers, texture–perception correlations) cite the authors’ prior work, but these are presented as examples of the framework, not as the sole evidence that the framework is valid. External databases (USDA FoodData Central, FlavorDB, life-cycle assessment compilations, ComBase) and independent sensory/LCA literature supply independent grounding. The paper itself repeatedly flags data fragmentation, missing open multimodal benchmarks, and incomplete texture–perception and shelf-life links as open infrastructure needs rather than hidden premises. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to forbid alternatives. Circularity is therefore negligible; score 1 reflects only the normal presence of non-load-bearing self-citations in a perspective that also cites external sources.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

As a perspective paper the central claim rests on domain assumptions about the maturity and convergence of AI capabilities and on the premise that digital food representations are (or will become) sufficiently rich. No free parameters are fitted; the sole invented entity is the named framework itself.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The six AI capabilities (predictive, discovery, generative, foundation, world, agentic) are complementary and can be integrated into a single computational food-design pipeline.
    Stated as the organizing premise of Section 2 and Figure 1; treated as given rather than proven.
  • domain assumption Life-cycle assessment descriptors (land use, eutrophication, water use, GHG) and nutrient-profiling scores (HEI, Nutri-Score) are sufficiently accurate and transferable to serve as reliable optimization objectives across formulations.
    Invoked throughout Sections 5 and 6; acknowledged limitations (context dependence, bioavailability) are noted but not quantified.
  • domain assumption Hybrid discrete-continuous generative models (multinomial + score-based diffusion) can learn the structure of real recipes well enough to produce novel, sensorially acceptable formulations.
    Supported by citation to the authors’ prior burger work rather than re-derived here.
invented entities (1)
  • generative science of food formulation / computational food design framework no independent evidence
    purpose: Unifies digital food representations with the six AI capabilities so that taste, nutrition, sustainability, cost and manufacturability become simultaneous design objectives.
    The named framework is the paper’s primary conceptual contribution; it is not an independently measured physical entity but a proposed scientific paradigm.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23816 in / 2459 out tokens · 28637 ms · 2026-07-13T02:21:29.572621+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Artificial Intelligence and the Generative Science of Food Formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYNF345S

@misc{pith2026260709529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Artificial Intelligence and the Generative Science of Food Formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYNF345S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09529}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Food formulation requires balancing taste, nutrition, sustainability, and cost. Traditionally, new foods have emerged through empirical experimentation, expert intuition, and iterative refinement. Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly across food science, yet most applications remain isolated prediction and optimization tasks rather than parts of a broader scientific framework. Here we define a unified framework for the generative science of food formulation, in which digital food representations enable artificial intelligence to predict, discover, generate, organize, simulate, and optimize. We illustrate this framework through sustainability and nutrition, where generative artificial intelligence transforms environmental and nutritional metrics from post hoc evaluation criteria into explicit design objectives. Finally, we identify the data, models, benchmarks, and automation that will establish computational food design as a rigorous scientific discipline. Together, these advances are transforming food formulation into a generative science.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahn YY, Ahnert SE, Bagrow J, Barab´ asi AL

  2. [2]

    Rep.1:196

    Flavor network and the principles of food pairing.Sci. Rep.1:196

  3. [3]

    Ahuja JKC, Li Y, Haytowitz DB, Bahadur R, Pehrsson PR, et al. 2020. USDA FoodData Cen- tral: Toward enhanced transparency in nutrient composition.J. Food Compos. Anal.89:103489

    2020

  4. [4]

    Al-Sarayreh M, Gomes Reis M, Carr A, Martins dos Reis M. 2023. Inverse design and AI/Deep generative networks in food design: A comprehen- sive review.Trends Food Sci. Tech.138:215–228

    2023

  5. [5]

    Barabasi AL, Menichetti G, Loscalzo J. 2020. The unmapped chemical complexity of our diet. Nature Food1:33–37

    2020

  6. [6]

    Baranyi J, Roberts TA. 2004. A dynamic approach to predicting bacterial growth in food. Int. J. Food Microbiol.23:277–94

    2004

  7. [7]

    Boes B, Simon JW, Holthusen H, Kuhl E. 2026. The mechanics and physics of tofu: Understand- ing hydrated soft solids through feature networks. J. Mech. Phys. Solids206:105337

    2026

  8. [8]

    Boiko D, MacKnight R, Kline B, Gomes G

  9. [9]

    Autonomous chemical research with large language models.Nature624:570–578

  10. [10]

    Bommasani R, et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models.Stanford Cen- ter for Research on Foundation Models Report, eprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Bourne MC. 1978. Texture profile analysis.Food Technol.32:62–67

    1978

  12. [12]

    Bowman SA, Clemens JC, Friday JE, Moshfegh AJ. 2020. Food Patterns Equivalents Database 2017-2018: Methodology and User Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland

    2020

  13. [13]

    Brown TB, et al. 2020. Language models are few- shot learners. inAdv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33:1877–1901

    2020

  14. [14]

    Brunton SL, Proctor JL, Kutz JN. 2016. Discov- ering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA113:3932–3937

    2016

  15. [15]

    Clark M, Springmann M, Rayner M, et al. 2022. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119:e2120584119

    2022

  16. [16]

    Datta A, Nicolai B, Vitrac O, Verboven P, Erdogdu F, Marra F, Sarghini F, Koh, C. 2022. Computer-aided food engineering.Nature Food 3:894–904 17

    2022

  17. [17]

    Datta B, Buehler MJ, Chow Y, Gligoric K, Juraf- sky D, Kaplan DL, Lesema-Amaro R, Del Missier G, Neidhardt L, Pichara K, Sanchez-Lengeling B, Schlangen M, St Pierre SR, Tagkopoulos I, Thomas A, Watson N, Kuhl E. 2026. Artificial intelligence for food innovation. Nature Food. 2026; doi:10.1038/s43016-026-01380-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s43016-026-01380-7 2026

  18. [18]

    Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K

  19. [19]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. inProc. 2019 Conf. N. Am. Chap. Ass. Comp. Ling.pp. 4171–4186

    2019

  20. [20]

    Drewnowski A, Dwyer J, King JC, Weaver CM

  21. [21]

    Rev.77:404–16

    A proposed nutrient density score that includes food groups and nutrients to better align with dietary guidance.Nutr. Rev.77:404–16

  22. [22]

    Dunne RA, Darwin EC, Perez Medina VA, Lev- enston ME, St Pierre SR, Kuhl E. 2025. Texture profile analysis and rheology of plant-based and animal meat.Food Res. Int.205:115876

    2025

  23. [23]

    Gephart JA, Henriksson PJG, Parker RWR, She- pon A, Gorospe KD, Bergman K, Eshel G, Golden CD, Halpern BS, Hornborg S, Jonell M, Metian M, Mifflin K, Newton R, Tyedmers P, Zhang W, Ziegler F, Troell M. 2021. Envi- ronmental performance of blue foods.Nature 597:360–365

    2021

  24. [24]

    Ghafarollahi A, Buehler MJ. 2025. Sparks: Multi- agent artificial intelligence model discovers pro- tein design principles.arXiv. 2504.19017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Goodfellow IJ, Pouget-Abadie J, Mirza M, Xu B, Warde-Farley D, Ozair S, Courville A, Bengio Y

  26. [26]

    Generative adversarial nets. inAdv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.27:2672–2680

  27. [27]

    Goglio P, Schreiber K, Pelzer E, et al. 2024. An environmental assessment ofAgaricus bisporus ((J.E. Lange) Imbach) mushroom production sys- tems across Europe.Eur. J. Agron.155:127108

    2024

  28. [28]

    Ha D, Schmidhuber J. 2018. World models. eprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Hafner D, Lillicrap T, Fischer I, Villegas R, Ha D, Lee H, Davidson J. 2019. Learning latent dynam- ics for planning from pixels. inProc. 36th Int. Conf. Machine Learning97:2555–2565

    2019

  30. [30]

    Hafner D, Lillicrap T, Ba J, Norouzi M. 2020. Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination.Proc. Int. Conf. Learning Rep. eprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Hellweg S, Mil` a i Canals L. 2014. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment.Science344:1109–13

    2014

  32. [32]

    Ho J, Jain A, Abbeel P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. inAdv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.33:6840–6851

    2020

  33. [33]

    Julia C, Etil´ e F, Hercberg S. 2018. Front-of-pack Nutri-Score labelling in France: An evidence- based policy.Lancet Public Health3:e164

    2018

  34. [34]

    Keesing F. 2022. Diet for a small footprint.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.119:e2204241119

    2022

  35. [35]

    Kingma DP, Welling M. 2014. Auto-encoding variational Bayes.2nd Int. Conf. Learn. Repr. (ICLR 2014), Banff, Alberta, Canada, eprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Koosis AO, Gardner CD, Kuhl E. 2026. The burger battle: The future is blended.bioRxiv doi:10.64898/2026.06.17.732995

    work page doi:10.64898/2026.06.17.732995 2026

  37. [37]

    Krebs-Smith SM, et al. 2018. Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2015.J. Acad. Nutr. Diet.118:1591–602

    2018

  38. [38]

    Kuhl E. 2025. AI for Food: Accelerating and democratizing discovery and innovation.npj Sci. Food9: 82

    2025

  39. [39]

    1971.Diet for a Small Planet.Bal- lantine Books, New York

    Lapp´ e FM. 1971.Diet for a Small Planet.Bal- lantine Books, New York

    1971

  40. [40]

    1998.Sensory Evalua- tion of Food: Principles and Practices.Springer Science + Business Media, New York

    Lawless H, Heymann H. 1998.Sensory Evalua- tion of Food: Principles and Practices.Springer Science + Business Media, New York

    1998

  41. [41]

    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. 2015. Deep learn- ing.Nature521:436–444

    2015

  42. [42]

    Linka K, Kuhl E. 2023. A new family of constitu- tive artificial neural networks towards automated model discovery.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.403:115731

    2023

  43. [43]

    Linka K, Holzapfel GA, Kuhl E. 2023. Discovering uncertainty: Bayesian constitutive artificial neu- ral networks.Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng.433: 117517

    2023

  44. [44]

    McClements DJ, Barrangou R, Hill C, Kokini JL, Lila MA, Meyer AS, Yu L. 2024. Building a resilient, sustainable, and healthier food supply through innovation and technology.Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol.12:1-28

    2024

  45. [45]

    Mainardi F, Drewnowski A, Green H. 2019. Personalized nutrient profiling of food patterns: Nestl´ e’s Nutrition Algorithm applied to dietary intakes from NHANES.Nutrients11:379

    2019

  46. [46]

    Mu W, et al. 2024. Making food systems more resilient to food safety risks by including artificial intelligence, big data, and internet of things into food safety early warning and emerging risk iden- tification tools.Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 23:e13296

    2024

  47. [47]

    NotCo Delaware, LLC. 2021. Neural network method of generating food formulas.US Patent No. 10,957,424U.S. Patent and Trademark 18 Office

    2021

  48. [48]

    Ordovas JM, Ferguson LR, Tai ES, Mathers JC

  49. [49]

    Personalised nutrition and health.BMJ 361:k2173

  50. [50]

    Pennells J, et al. 2025. Mapping the AI land- scape in food science and engineering: a biblio- metric analysis enhanced with interactive digital tools and company case studies.Food Eng. Rev. 17:465-489

    2025

  51. [51]

    Poore J, Nemecek T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers.Science360:987–92

    2018

  52. [52]

    Qian C, Murphy SI, Orsi RH, Wiedmann M

  53. [53]

    How can AI help improve food safety? Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol.15:517–538

  54. [54]

    Papastratis I, Konstantinidis D, Daras P, Dim- itropoulos K. 2024. AI nutrition recommendation using a deep generative model and ChatGPT.Sci. Rep.14:14620

    2024

  55. [55]

    2013.Food Packaging: Principles and Practice.3rd ed

    Robertson GL. 2013.Food Packaging: Principles and Practice.3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida

    2013

  56. [56]

    Roohani Y, et al. 2024. BioDiscoveryAgent: An AI agent for designing genetic perturbation exper- iments. In:Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR). arXiv. 2405.17631

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Rosenblatt F. 1958. The perceptron: A probabilis- tic model for information storage and organiza- tion in the brain.Psychol. Rev.65:386–408

    1958

  58. [58]

    Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. 1986. Learning representations by back-propagating errors.Nature323:533–536

    1986

  59. [59]

    Salvador A, et al. 2017. Learning cross-modal embeddings for cooking recipes and food images. Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog- nit.pp. 3020–3028

    2017

  60. [60]

    Schick T, Dwivedi-Yu J, Dess` ı R, Raileanu R, Lomeli M, Zettlemoyer L, Cancedda N, Scialom T. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. inAdv. Neural Inf. Pro- cess. Syst.36:68539–68551

    2023

  61. [61]

    Schmidt M, Lipson H. 2009. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data.Science 324:81–85

    2009

  62. [62]

    Spence C. 2015. Multisensory flavor perception. Cell161:24–35

    2015

  63. [63]

    Pierre SR, Darwin EC, Adil D, Aviles MC, Date A, Dunne RA, Lall Y, Parra Vallecillo M, Perez Medina VA, Linka K, Levenston ME, Kuhl E

    St. Pierre SR, Darwin EC, Adil D, Aviles MC, Date A, Dunne RA, Lall Y, Parra Vallecillo M, Perez Medina VA, Linka K, Levenston ME, Kuhl E. 2024. The mechanical and sensory signature of plant-based and animal meat.npj Sci. Food8:94

    2024

  64. [64]

    Pierre SR, Kuhl E

    St. Pierre SR, Kuhl E. 2024. Mimicking mechan- ics: A comparison of meat and meat analogs. Foods13: 3495

    2024

  65. [65]

    Pierre SR, Boyle L, Vervenne T, Darwin EC, Goodson MA, Palomares M, Zhang N, Kuhl E

    St. Pierre SR, Boyle L, Vervenne T, Darwin EC, Goodson MA, Palomares M, Zhang N, Kuhl E

  66. [66]

    Mechanical, rheological, and sensory char- acterization of lion’s mane mushroom steak.Curr. Res. Food Sci.12: 101403

  67. [67]

    Pierre SR, Koosis AO, Zhang N, Kuhl E

    St. Pierre SR, Koosis AO, Zhang N, Kuhl E. 2026. The meatball matchup: Plant vs. animal proteins on campus.Food Res. Int.240:119631

    2026

  68. [68]

    Swanson K, et al. 2025. The Virtual Lab of AI agents designs new SARS-CoV-2 nanobodies. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09442-9

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09442-9 2025

  69. [69]

    Szczesniak AS. 2002. Texture is a sensory prop- erty.Food Qual. Prefer.13:215-225

    2002

  70. [70]

    Tac V, Koosis OA, Kuhl E. 2026. Texture inde- pendently drives liking in AI-generated alterna- tive protein burgers.Foods15:2026

    2026

  71. [71]

    Tac V, Kuhl E. 2026. Generative AI for mate- rial design: A mechanics perspective from burg- ers to matter.Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 461:119171

    2026

  72. [72]

    Tac V, Gardner CD, Kuhl E. 2026. Generative artificial intelligence creates delicious, sustain- able, and nutritious burgers.npj Sci. Food10:199

    2026

  73. [73]

    2026.AI4Burgers: An Interactive Platform for Generative and Personalized Burger Design.available at https://ai4burgers.com

    Tac V, Gardner CD, Kuhl E. 2026.AI4Burgers: An Interactive Platform for Generative and Personalized Burger Design.available at https://ai4burgers.com. accessed June 2026

    2026

  74. [74]

    Thomas AT, Yee A, Mayne A, Mathur MB, Juraf- sky D, Gligoric K. 2025. What can large language models do for sustainable food?Int. Conf. Mach. Learn

    2025

  75. [75]

    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Mushrooms.National Agricultural Statistics Service. ISSN: 1949–1530

    2016

  76. [76]

    van Boekel MAJS. 2008. Kinetic modeling of food quality: A critical review.Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.7:144-158

    2008

  77. [77]

    van den Bedem SD, Kuhl E, Cotto C. 2026. Open- source benchmarking of plant-based and animal meats.Foods15:1785

    2026

  78. [78]

    Vervenne T, St Pierre SR, Famaey N, Kuhl E

  79. [79]

    Acta Biomat.202:341-351

    Probing mycelium mechanics and taste: The moist and fibrous signature of fungi steak. Acta Biomat.202:341-351

  80. [80]

    Wei A. 2023. Food.com Recipes and Interac- tions. Kaggle dataset, https://www.kaggle.com/ datasets/shuyangli94/food-com-recipes-and- user-interactions 19

    2023

Showing first 80 references.