Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Hierarchical rank-evolving representation for physics-informed neural networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HRE representation self-determines tensor ranks and structure during training, and the resulting HRE-PINN outperforms fixed-rank tensor-based PINNs across five PDE benchmarks.

desk verdict A genuinely new hierarchical tensor representation for PINNs, but the automatic rank determination claim collapses under a scale-degeneracy argument; worth refereeing if the authors fix the mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09483 v1 pith:HFPUUNGE submitted 2026-08-10 cs.LG cs.NAmath.NAphysics.comp-ph

Ruoyang Su , Xi-Le Zhao , Kun Li , Liang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.NAmath.NAphysics.comp-ph MSC 15A6968T07
keywords physics-informedneuralnetworkstensornetworkdecompositionrank-evolvingrepresentationautomaticrankdeterminationmultivariatefunctionapproximationsparsityregularizationhigh-dimensionalPDEsfully-connected
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 claims that the right tensor representation for a multivariate solution can be found by the training process itself, not fixed in advance. Its hierarchical rank-evolving (HRE) representation writes a function as an outer sum of univariate networks multiplied into a small core tensor, and then expands that core tensor as a fully-connected tensor network whose internal edge sizes are controlled by learnable sparse vectors. An $\ell^1$ penalty on those vectors is meant to drive redundant entries to zero, so the ranks and the network topology are revealed automatically, eliminating manual rank tuning. The resulting HRE-PINN is reported to beat SPINN, TT-PINN, and Tucker-PINN on every one of the five benchmark PDEs tested (3D Helmholtz, 5D Poisson, (2+1)D Klein-Gordon, flow mixing, and Navier-Stokes), often cutting the best baseline error by roughly 40 percent to 80 percent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the HRE representation: an outer function-Tucker expansion in which each univariate network $g_n(x_n)$ is weighted by a learnable vector $r_n^{(\mathrm{out})}$ before being contracted with a core tensor $\mathcal{T}$, and an inner decomposition of that core tensor as a fully-connected tensor network in which every connection between two factors is multiplied by a learnable vector $r_{k,l}^{(\mathrm{in})}$. These rank-evolving vectors act as soft gates: an entry pushed to zero by the $\ell^1$ penalty removes that component or edge, so the remaining nonzeros define the effective rank and the surviving structure. The mechanism does the work of replacing manual rank selection with a sparsity prior, and the fully-connected inner network supplies the flexibility to represent all-mode correlations that tensor-train or tensor-ring decompositions miss.

What would settle it

Train HRE-PINN on the 5D Poisson problem and inspect the trained values of $r^{(\mathrm{in})}$ and $r^{(\mathrm{out})}$: count how many entries are exactly zero in floating point, and then vary the sparsity weights $\lambda$ and $\mu$ slightly and see whether the reported rank (the number of nonzero entries) changes discontinuously or drifts. If no exact zeros appear without a thresholding step, or if the revealed rank is highly sensitive to the penalty weight, the automatic rank determination claimed in the paper fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that pairing a variable-separable outer representation with a fully-connected inner tensor network that carries per-edge learnable gate vectors makes rank selection an emergent property of optimization rather than a user decision. In HRE, each mode of the outer expansion is weighted by a vector $r^{(\mathrm{out})}$ and each connection between inner factors is weighted by a vector $r^{(\mathrm{in})}$; under $\ell^1$ regularization these weights drive unneeded degrees of freedom to zero. The authors argue that after training the number of nonzero entries directly gives the suitable rank, and a pruned edge corresponds to a removed correlation, so the representation self-selects both its size and its topology. The numerical comparisons on five PDE benchmarks, supported by ablations on the 5D Poisson equation, are used to show that this adaptive structure outperforms fixed-topology tensor-based PINNs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $\ell^1$ penalty together with the chosen optimizer makes redundant entries of the rank-evolving vectors exactly zero, so that the ranks and topology can be read off directly without any thresholding rule; if entries end up merely small, rank selection still depends on a manual cutoff.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If HRE-PINN's results hold, tensor-based PINNs no longer need a user-chosen rank; setting the two sparsity weights $\lambda$ and $\mu$ is enough, and the network discovers its own capacity.
  • The same hierarchy can be dropped into any PDE solver that represents the solution as a sum of separable functions, giving automatic structure selection without changing the physics-informed loss.
  • The ablation results indicate that the outer layer and the inner structure contribute complementary gains, so the representation should degrade gracefully when one layer is removed and improve further on problems where both the dimension count and the cross-mode coupling are large.
  • Because the inner network is fully connected, HRE-PINN should be able to represent solutions whose correlations are global rather than chain-like, which is where TT-PINN and TR-PINN are weakest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • (Inference) The automatic rank read-out likely depends on the optimizer driving weights to precisely zero; with plain gradient-based training and an $\ell^1$ penalty, exact zeros are rare, so a practical implementer will probably need a threshold or rounding step, which is a mild extra choice the paper does not discuss.
  • (Inference) The gating idea is essentially a continuous architecture search over tensor-network topologies, so it could transfer to operator learning: making the trunk and branch networks of a separable DeepONet carry the same sparse rank-evolving weights might yield adaptive operator architectures.
  • (Inference) The Navier-Stokes test uses one random initial vorticity field; repeating the comparison over many random fields and seeds would clarify whether the advantage reflects a universally better low-rank representation of turbulent correlations or a favorable initialization.
  • (Inference) Since the outer univariate networks are independent per coordinate, the same sparsity mechanism could be extended to prune whole univariate branches, shrinking the actual number of network evaluations and reducing inference cost beyond rank reduction.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a hierarchical rank-evolving (HRE) representation for multivariate functions and embeds it in a physics-informed neural network (HRE-PINN). HRE combines an outer function Tucker decomposition, whose univariate basis functions are neural networks, with an inner fully-connected tensor network (FCTN) decomposition of the core tensor. Each edge of the inner network and each outer component is modulated by a learnable vector, regularized with an L1 penalty so that redundant modes are purportedly pruned during training, yielding automatic rank and structure discovery. The total loss combines PDE residual, boundary, and sparsity terms. Experiments on five PDEs (3D Helmholtz, 5D Poisson, (2+1)D Klein-Gordon, flow mixing, Navier-Stokes vorticity) compare HRE-PINN against SPINN, TT-PINN, and Tucker-PINN, reporting consistently lower RMSE and relative L2/L-infinity errors. Ablation studies on the 5D Poisson equation attribute gains to the hierarchical design, the rank-evolving mechanism, and the customized inner structure.

Significance. If the claimed results are reproducible, the paper would offer a meaningful step toward adaptive tensor representations in PINNs: the HRE structure is a natural extension of FCTN and SVDinsTN into continuous function space, and the experimental suite covers useful hard cases. The work provides explicit definitions and an algorithm, plus ablation studies that isolate components. However, the central novelty—automatic rank determination via L1-regularized rank-evolving vectors—is currently under-justified, and the empirical evidence is weakened by test-set model selection, missing baselines, and absent error bars. With fixes, the method could be a solid contribution to scientific machine learning.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, test-set checkpoint selection] The sentence in Section 4 that 'The model checkpoint yielding the best prediction accuracy on test samples is retained to produce the final results' implies that the reported errors in Tables 1-5 are obtained by test-set model selection. This biases all reported accuracies upward and makes the claimed 'consistently outperform' unverifiable as a generalization statement. Use a validation set (disjoint from the test set used for reporting) or an early-stopping criterion based on training loss, and report the test errors computed at the selected checkpoint. In addition, because PINN training is stochastic, please report means and standard deviations over at least 3-5 random seeds.
  2. [Section 4, baseline selection] The comparison omits the most relevant baselines for the claimed contribution: a functional FCTN-based PINN and a functional SVDinsTN-based PINN (the structure-search method of Ref. [48] that HRE builds on). A standard (non-tensor) PINN is also not included. Since the inner layer of HRE is an FCTN decomposition with rank-evolving vectors, and since SVDinsTN is precisely a structure-search tensor network, these baselines are needed to support the abstract's claim that HRE-PINN 'consistently outperform[s] existing state-of-the-art approaches.' Without them, the improvements in Tables 1-5 could be due to the extra flexibility of the FCTN backbone rather than the rank-evolving mechanism.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (3), hyperparameters] The loss in Eq. (3) involves hyperparameters eta, lambda, and mu, and the method requires initial outer widths I_n, inner bond dimensions J_{k,l}, univariate network architectures, and optimizer settings. None of these are reported per experiment; the text merely says baselines are 'configured following the original publications' and 'consistent network capacities.' This is insufficient for reproducibility and makes the claim of freeing users from 'manual rank tuning' hard to assess, since many other manual choices remain. Please provide a table of all hyperparameters and training budgets for every benchmark.
  4. [Section 5.3, Table 8] In Section 5.3, Table 8 compares 'Tensor directly', TT, TR, and FCTN with the 'Proposed' structure, but the fixed-structure baselines are presumably run without the inner rank-evolving vectors, whereas the Proposed row includes them. The attribution of the accuracy gain to the underlying structure is therefore confounded with the gain from rank evolution. Run the fixed structures with the same outer rank-evolving projection and report whether inner rank-evolving vectors are enabled in each row, or redesign the ablation so that only the inner graph topology varies.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Definition 2, Section 3.2] The index range '1 <= k <= l <= N' for the inner rank-evolving vectors is ambiguous and likely should be '1 <= k < l <= N', since FCTN edges connect distinct factors.
  2. [Eq. (3), Section 3.3] The boundary loss term is weighted by eta times 1/N_B, while the residual loss has no explicit outer weight; this asymmetry may bias the optimization and should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.3, Klein-Gordon equation] In the PDE system, the boundary condition line reads 't in Omega' in the second line; this appears to be a typo and should be 't in Gamma' to match the time interval.
  4. [Section 4.4, flow mixing equation] The symbol b is used both for the spatially varying coefficient b(x,y) in the advection terms and for the boundary function b(x,y,t); please rename one of them to avoid confusion.
  5. [Throughout] There are typos such as 'underling structure' (end of Section 3.2), 'reveal the underlying structure' for 'reveals' (Section 3.3), and 'produces' for 'produce' (Section 4.5); a careful proofread is recommended.
  6. [Figure 1] The caption of Figure 1 does not explain the meaning of nodes and edges in the tensor network diagrams; a legend would help readers understand the structural differences.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: HRE-PINN's claims are validated against external PDE benchmarks, and the rank-revealing mechanism is an optimization output, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Definition 2 introduces the HRE representation, and the training objective (3) combines the PDE residual, boundary loss, and L1 penalties on the learnable rank-evolving vectors; the "suitable ranks" are read off from the optimized vectors after training rather than fitted to precomputed target values and then reported as predictions. The empirical superiority claims in Section 4 are tested directly against exact/reference solutions of the Helmholtz, Poisson, Klein-Gordon, flow-mixing, and Navier-Stokes equations, so the central result is not an identity with the input. The authors' prior FCTN/SVDinsTN works (Refs. [46,47,48]) supply the inner tensor-decomposition building block, but this is a design choice validated by the paper's own ablations and benchmarks, not a self-citation used to prove the contribution. The main caveat, that L1 regularization with Adam may not drive entries to exact zeros and that the r vectors can be counter-scaled with g_n without changing the represented function, is a well-posedness/thresholding concern about automatic rank determination (Secs. 3.2-3.3), not a circularity: the claimed rank is neither identical to a fitted parameter nor equivalent by construction to the inputs of the PDE loss.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on ordinary approximation and optimization assumptions plus one ad hoc sparsity assumption. No new physical entities or parameters are postulated beyond the rank-evolving vectors, which are regularized parameters rather than invented entities. The key unproven premise is that L1-regularized Adam training produces exact zeros, which is load-bearing for the claimed automatic rank determination.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda (inner rank sparsity weight) = not reported
    Regularization weight on ||r^(in)||_1 in loss (3); its value determines which inner edges are pruned.
  • mu (outer rank sparsity weight) = not reported
    Regularization weight on ||r^(out)||_1 in loss (3); controls pruning of univariate basis components.
  • eta (boundary loss weight) = not reported
    Weight on the boundary/initial condition loss term in loss (3).
  • initial univariate basis widths I_n = not reported
    Output dimensions of the univariate networks g_n; they set an upper bound on the outer rank before pruning.
  • initial inner bond dimensions J_{k,l} = not reported
    Upper bounds on the inner tensor network ranks, preset before L1 pruning.
  • univariate network architecture (depth and width) = not reported
    Capacity of each g_n influences approximation accuracy and is not specified in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Univariate neural networks g_n can approximate arbitrary smooth univariate functions
    Invoked when the solution is approximated as a sum of g_n(x_n) components in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The benchmark PDEs are well posed and the manufactured solutions are exact
    Experiments in Section 4 rely on analytic reference solutions; any error in the manufactured solutions would propagate into the reported metrics.
  • domain assumption Adam optimization finds a low-enough loss in the joint parameter space
    No convergence analysis or initialization strategy is provided; the method assumes that gradient descent reaches an accurate PDE solution.
  • ad hoc to paper L1 regularization drives rank-evolving vectors to exactly zero under Adam
    Section 3.3 asserts that non-zero entries after training give the suitable rank, but exact sparsity is not guaranteed and no threshold is defined.
  • standard math FCTN decomposition can represent the inner core tensor given large enough ranks
    Representational completeness of FCTN is cited from [46,47] and assumed in the inner decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical rank-evolving representation for physics-informed neural networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFPUUNGE

@misc{pith2026260809483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical rank-evolving representation for physics-informed neural networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFPUUNGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09483}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, tensor-based physics-informed neural networks (T-PINNs) have received increasing attention. However, existing T-PINNs still face a fundamental challenge: they mainly rely on pre-specified low-rank tensor decompositions with manually tuned ranks, which limits their ability to capture the underlying structures of multivariate solution functions and hinders their practical deployment. To address this challenge, we propose a hierarchical rank-evolving (abbreviated as HRE) representation for multivariate functions, which endows us to faithfully capture the underlying structure of the targeted multivariate function accompanying with automatic rank determination. Concretely, in the hierarchical design of HRE representation, the target multivariate function is decomposed as a small-scale inner tensor with a set of univariate functions along each mode, where a customized tensor network decomposition can be readily deployed to capture the underlying structure of the small-scale inner tensor. In HRE representation, the crucial hyperparameters, ranks, can be adaptively revealed during the decomposition, freeing us from manual rank tuning and making HRE practically applicable to real-world problems. Besides, we build the HRE-PINNs correspondingly. Extensive numerical experiments, including high-dimensional static problems (Helmholtz equation and Poisson equation), nonlinear time-dependent problems (Klein-Gordon equation), and complex fluid-dynamics problems (flow mixing equation and Navier-Stokes equation), demonstrate that HRE-PINNs consistently outperform existing state-of-the-art approaches in terms of accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Underlying structures of tensor network decompositions. However, the underlying structures of the aforementioned tensor network decompositions are all fixed, and finding the optimal structure has always been a challenging problem. To address this issue, SVD-inspired tensor network (SVDinsTN) decomposition [48] was proposed to efficiently search for a customized structure to achieve a compact representation. By inser… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of HRE-PINNs. In the hierarchical design of HRE representation, the target multivariate function is decomposed as a small-scale inner tensor with a set of univariate functions along each mode, where a customized tensor network decomposition can be readily deployed to capture the underlying structure of the small-scale inner tensor. We build the HRE-PINNs correspondingly, with a hybrid loss function that in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparison of predicted solutions and absolute errors for 3D Helmholtz equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual comparison of predicted solutions and absolute errors for 5D Poisson equation, sliced at 𝑥4 = 𝑥5 = 0.9. level. This qualitative observation aligns perfectly with the quantitative data in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of predicted solutions and absolute errors for (2+1)D Klein-Gordon equation. relative 𝐿∞ error. This hyperbolic PDE with second-order temporal derivatives and quadratic nonlinear terms poses a severe challenge to conventional tensor-based PINNs, yet H…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison of predicted solutions and absolute errors for (2+1)D flow mixing equation at 𝑡 = 4. spatially variable rotational velocity fields and sharp fluid interface structures severely tests the representation capacity of tensor-based PINNs, and HRE-PINN achi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of predicted vorticity field and absolute errors for (2+1)D Navier-Stokes equation at 𝑡 = 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    22413–22422

    Y.-B.Zheng,X.-L.Zhao,J.Zeng,C.Li,Q.Zhao,H.C.Li,T.-Z.Huang, SVDinsTN:Atensornetworkparadigmforefficientstructuresearch from regularized modeling perspective, in: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 22413–22422. doi:10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.02480

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    J. Song, W. Cao, W. Zhang, FENN: Feature-enhanced neural network for solving partial differential equations involving fluid mechanics, Journal of Computational Physics 542 (2025) 114370. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114370

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    H. Xing, K. Jin, G. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Xu, D. Wen, A novel trunk branch-net PINN for flow and heat transfer prediction in porous medium, Journal of Computational Physics 543 (2025) 114385. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114385

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    Rocha, S

    F. Rocha, S. Deparis, P. Antolin, A. Buffa, DeepBND: A machine learning approach to enhance multiscale solid mechanics, Journal of Computational Physics 479 (2023) 111996. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2023.111996

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Würth, N

    T. Würth, N. Freymuth, C. Zimmerling, G. Neumann, L. Kärger, Physics-informed meshgraphnets (PI-MGNs): Neural finite element solvers for non-stationary and nonlinear simulations on arbitrary meshes, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 429 (2024) 117102. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.117102

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2530330123

    C.Mao,J.A.Fan, AccurateandscalabledeepMaxwellsolvers, ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences123(2026)e2530330123. doi:10.1073/pnas.2530330123

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2530330123 2026

  7. [6]

    A. E. Rappaport, T. Chaumont-Frelet, A. Modave, A hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method with transmission variables for time- harmonic electromagnetic problems, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 48 (2026) B629–B650. doi:10.1137/25M1756818

    work page doi:10.1137/25m1756818 2026

  8. [7]

    J. Han, L. Zhang, W. E, Solving many-electron Schrödinger equation using deep neural networks, Journal of Computational Physics 399 (2019) 108929. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108929

    arXiv 2019

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Shang, C

    H. Shang, C. Guo, Y. Wu, Z. Li, J. Yang, Solving the many-electron Schrödinger equation with a transformer-based framework, Nature Communications 16 (2025) 8464. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-63219-2

    2025 doi

  2. [9]

    H. Wang, T. S. Basu, A fast finite difference method for two-dimensional space-fractional diffusion equations, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 34 (2012) A2444–A2458. doi:10.1137/12086491X

    2012 doi

  3. [10]

    Martínez-Lera, M

    P. Martínez-Lera, M. De Corato, A finite element method for stochastic diffusion equations using fluctuating hydrodynamics, Journal of Computational Physics 510 (2024) 113098. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113098

    2024

  4. [11]

    Y. Lu, D. Xiao, R. Fu, X. Xu, S. Sun, Non-intrusive reduced order modeling of fluid flows via finite element inspired graph neural network, Journal of Computational Physics 553 (2026) 114727. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2026.114727

    2026

  5. [12]

    R. Li, Y. Lu, Y. Wang, H. Xu, Hermite spectral method for multi-species Boltzmann equation, Journal of Computational Physics 471 (2022) 111650. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111650

    2022

  6. [13]

    J. Han, A. Jentzen, W. E, Solving high-dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (2018) 8505–8510. doi:10.1073/pnas.1718942115

    2018 doi

  7. [14]

    Hutzenthaler, A

    M. Hutzenthaler, A. Jentzen, T. Kruse, Overcoming the curse of dimensionality in the numerical approximation of parabolic partial differentialequationswithgradient-dependentnonlinearities, FoundationsofComputationalMathematics22(2022)905–966.doi:10.1007/ s10208-021-09514-y

    2022

  8. [15]

    Z. Hu, K. Shukla, G. E. Karniadakis, K. Kawaguchi, Tackling the curse of dimensionality with physics-informed neural networks, Neural Networks 176 (2024) 106369. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106369

    2024

  9. [16]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. 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 (2019) 686–707. doi:10.1016/j.jcp. 2018.10.045

    2019 doi

  10. [17]

    Cuomo, V

    S. Cuomo, V. S. Di Cola, F. Giampaolo, G. Rozza, M. Raissi, F. Piccialli, Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next, Journal of Scientific Computing (2022) 88–92. doi:10.1007/s10915-022-01939-z

    2022 doi

  11. [18]

    Z.-Q. J. Xu, L. Zhang, W. Cai, On understanding and overcoming spectral biases of deep neural network learning methods for solving PDEs, Journal of Computational Physics 530 (2025) 113905. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.113905

    2025

  12. [19]

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114297

    F.Cao,K.Fan,H.Zhang,D.Yuan,J.Liu, AdaptiveresidualsplittinginPINNsforsolvingcomplexPDEs, JournalofComputationalPhysics 540 (2025) 114297. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114297

    2025

  13. [20]

    C. Si, M. Yan, X. Li, Z. Xia, Complex physics-informed neural network, Journal of Computational Physics 553 (2026) 114713. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2026.114713

    2026

  14. [21]

    Calin, Universal Approximators, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, pp

    O. Calin, Universal Approximators, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, pp. 251–284. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-36721-3_9

    2020 doi

  15. [22]

    X. Pan, D. Xiao, Domain decomposition for physics-data combined neural network based parametric reduced order modelling, Journal of Computational Physics 519 (2024) 113452. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113452

    2024

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112437

    F.Wang,X.Gu,J.Sun,Z.Xu, Learning-basedlocalweightedleastsquaresforalgebraicmultigridmethod, JournalofComputationalPhysics 493 (2023) 112437. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112437

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sahli Costabal, S

    F. Sahli Costabal, S. Pezzuto, P. Perdikaris,Δ-PINNs: Physics-informed neural networks on complex geometries, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 127 (2024) 107324. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107324

    2024

  18. [26]

    L. Yang, X. Meng, G. E. Karniadakis, B-PINNs: Bayesian physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE problems with noisy data, Journal of Computational Physics 425 (2021) 109913. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109913

    2021

  19. [27]

    Z. Zou, X. Meng, G. E. Karniadakis, Correcting model misspecification in physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), Journal of Computational Physics 505 (2024) 112918. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112918

    2024

  20. [28]

    M.Petersen,R.Covino,PINN-MEP:Continuousneuralrepresentationsforminimumenergypathdiscoveryinmolecularsystems,in:Frontiers in Probabilistic Inference: Learning meets Sampling, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    S. Wang, S. Sankaran, P. Perdikaris, Respecting causality for training physics-informed neural networks, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 421 (2024) 116813. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.116813

    2024

  22. [30]

    Y. Wang, H. Xie, Computing multi-eigenpairs of high-dimensional eigenvalue problems using tensor neural networks, Journal of Computational Physics 506 (2024) 112928. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112928. R. Su et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 16 of 17 Hierarchical rank-evolv...

    2024

  23. [31]

    26548–26560

    A.Krishnapriyan,A.Gholami,S.Zhe,R.Kirby,M.W.Mahoney, Characterizingpossiblefailuremodesinphysics-informedneuralnetworks, in:M.Ranzato,A.Beygelzimer,Y.Dauphin,P.Liang,J.W.Vaughan(Eds.),AdvancesinNeuralInformationProcessingSystems,volume34, Curran Associates, Inc., 2021, pp. 26548–26560

    2021

  24. [32]

    doi:10.1137/20M1318043

    S.Wang,Y.Teng,P.Perdikaris, Understandingandmitigatinggradientflowpathologiesinphysics-informedneuralnetworks, SIAMJournal on Scientific Computing 43 (2021) A3055–A3081. doi:10.1137/20M1318043

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    J. Guo, Y. Yao, H. Wang, T. Gu, Pre-training strategy for solving evolution equations based on physics-informed neural networks, Journal of Computational Physics 489 (2023) 112258. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112258

    2023

  26. [34]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Li, B. Liu, Annealed adaptive importance sampling method in PINNs for solving high dimensional partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 521 (2025) 113561. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113561

    2025

  27. [35]

    Q. Lin, C. Zhang, X. Meng, Z. Guo, Monte Carlo physics-informed neural networks for multiscale heat conduction via phonon Boltzmann transport equation, Journal of Computational Physics 542 (2025) 114364. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114364

    2025

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2026.115071

    C.Zhao,X.Xie,W.Chen, Casualattention:Adaptiveenforcementofcausalityinphysics-informedneuralnetworks, JournalofComputational Physics 563 (2026) 115071. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2026.115071

    2026

  29. [37]

    J. Cho, S. Nam, H. Yang, S.-B. Yun, Y. Hong, E. Park, Separable physics-informed neural networks, in: A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, S. Levine (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, Curran Associates, Inc., 2023, pp. 23761–23788

    2023

  30. [38]

    S. K. Vemuri, T. Büchner, J. Niebling, J. Denzler, Functional tensor decompositions for physics-informed neural networks, in: A.Antonacopoulos,S.Chaudhuri,R.Chellappa,C.-L.Liu,S.Bhattacharya,U.Pal(Eds.),PatternRecognition,SpringerNatureSwitzerland, Cham, 2025, pp. 32–46

    2025

  31. [39]

    Z. Liu, X. Yu, Z. Zhang, TT-PINN: A tensor-compressed neural PDE solver for edge computing, 2022. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2207.01751.arXiv:2207.01751

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Y. Wang, H. Xie, P. Jin, Tensor neural network and its numerical integration, Journal of Computational Mathematics 42 (2024) 1714–1742. doi:10.4208/jcm.2307-m2022-0233

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Y. Wang,Z. Lin, Y.Liao, H. Liu,H. Xie, Solving high-dimensional partialdifferential equations usingtensor neural networkand a posteriori error estimators, Journal of Scientific Computing 101 (2024) 67. doi:10.1007/s10915-024-02700-4

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    S. K. Vemuri, T. Büchner, J. Niebling, J. Denzler, Scalable and expressive physics-informed neural networks via functional tensor decomposition, Pattern Recognition Letters 207 (2026) 184–192. doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2026.06.027

    2026 doi

  35. [43]

    Mandl, S

    L. Mandl, S. Goswami, L. Lambers, T. Ricken, Separable physics-informed DeepONet: Breaking the curse of dimensionality in physics- informed machine learning, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 434 (2025) 117586. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024. 117586

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    I. V. Oseledets, Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 33 (2011) 2295–2317. doi:10.1137/090752286

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    Q. Zhao, G. Zhou, S. Xie, L. Zhang, A. Cichocki, Tensor ring decomposition, 2016. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05535. arXiv:1606.05535

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Zheng, T.-Z

    Y.-B. Zheng, T.-Z. Huang, X.-L. Zhao, Q. Zhao, T.-X. Jiang, Fully-connected tensor network decomposition and its application to higher-order tensor completion, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, 2021, pp. 11071–11078. doi:10.1609/aaai...

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1007/s10915-022-01841-8

    Y.-B.Zheng,T.-Z.Huang,X.-L.Zhao,Q.Zhao,Tensorcompletionviafully-connectedtensornetworkdecompositionwithregularizedfactors, Journal of Scientific Computing 92 (2022) 8. doi:10.1007/s10915-022-01841-8

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    Q. Li, J. Chen, An unsupervised network architecture search method for solving partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 560 (2026) 114954. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2026.114954

    2026

  41. [50]

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111510

    A.Kashefi,T.Mukerji, Physics-informedPointNet:Adeeplearningsolverforsteady-stateincompressibleflowsandthermalfieldsonmultiple sets of irregular geometries, Journal of Computational Physics 468 (2022) 111510. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111510

    2022

  42. [51]

    Z. Hu, Z. Yang, Y. Wang, G. E. Karniadakis, K. Kawaguchi, Bias-variance trade-off in physics-informed neural networks with randomized smoothing for high-dimensional PDEs, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 47 (2025) C846–C872. doi:10.1137/23M1621356

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    Arzani, J.-X

    A. Arzani, J.-X. Wang, R. M. D’Souza, Uncovering near-wall blood flow from sparse data with physics-informed neural networks, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021) 071905. doi:10.1063/5.0055600

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3341688

    Y.Luo,X.Zhao,Z.Li,M.K.Ng,D.Meng, Low-ranktensorfunctionrepresentationformulti-dimensionaldatarecovery, IEEETransactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46 (2024) 3351–3369. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3341688

    2024

  45. [54]

    D.P.Kingma,J.L.Ba, Adam:Amethodforstochasticoptimization,in:ProceedingsofInternationalConferenceforLearningRepresentations, San Diego, 2015

    2015

  46. [55]

    Kochkov, J

    D. Kochkov, J. A. Smith, A. Alieva, Q. Wang, M. P. Brenner, S. Hoyer, Machine learning–accelerated computational fluid dynamics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (2021) e2101784118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2101784118. R. Su et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.