Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 60 references

High-throughput viscometry via machine-learning from videos of inverted vials

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural network can infer viscosity from videos of inverted vials across nearly five orders of magnitude, without any velocity-field measurements, and the authors report relative errors below 25 percent (about 15 percent above 0.1 Pa·s).

desk verdict Promising low-cost CV viscometer, but the five-decade generalization claim likely leaks fluid identity through the epistemic split. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02034 v1 pith:KDXOIGJE submitted 2025-05-30 cs.GR

Ignacio Arretche , Mohammad Tanver Hossain , Ramdas Tiwari , Abbie Kim , Mya G. Mills , Connor D. Armstrong , Jacob J. Lessard , Sameh H. Tawfick
show 1 more author
Randy H. Ewoldt
This is my paper
classification cs.GR
keywords viscosityinferenceinvertedvialtestcomputervisionneuralnetworkhigh-throughputrheometryprotorheologyvideo-basedflowanalysis
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 a neural network can infer a liquid's viscosity from nothing more than video footage of a fully inverted vial, across nearly five orders of magnitude (about 0.01 to 1000 Pa·s), with no measurements of flow velocity or pressure. If true, the inverted vial test—long used only as a qualitative 'does it pour?' check—becomes a quantitative screening tool that runs in parallel on many vials with a single camera and motor. The authors report relative errors below 25%, improving to about 15% for viscosities above 0.1 Pa·s, and show that the method can recover zero-shear viscosity of polymer solutions as long as viscoelastic and shear-thinning effects are weak in the flow regime. Because the hardware is inexpensive and contactless, the approach could make high-throughput rheological screening accessible to automated labs and low-resource settings.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trained neural inverse function: a two-dimensional CNN extracts spatial features from each processed video frame, a bidirectional long short-term memory (BLSTM) layer tracks temporal dependencies across the sequence, and a temporal self-attention layer weights frames by relevance—early frames matter for thin fluids, late frames for thick ones. Fluid density, the only measured fluid property, is fused through a dense layer before the regression head. The network implicitly learns the three flow regimes (Taylor drop, advancing front, drainage) and the viscosity-dependent initial conditions that arise during the finite flip, which is why a single model can span regimes where no closed-form solution exists.

What would settle it

Take two fluids with the same viscosity and density, one with a surface tension reduced by roughly 40% via surfactant (as in the paper's S6 test), and feed videos of both to the trained network; if the inferred viscosities remain within the 15–25% error band, the unmeasured-properties assumption holds at the low-viscosity end, whereas if the surfactant fluid is overestimated by ~40%, the assumption and the stated error range there are violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the mapping from raw, uncontrolled flow appearance to viscosity is learnable: a supervised CNN–BLSTM–self-attention network, trained on 960 videos of 96 viscosity–density combinations, approximates the inverse function $\eta = f^{-1}(\rho, [A], \{P\})$ where $[A]$ is the video's optical features and $\rho$ is the known density, and does so without explicit feature tracking or velocity-field measurement. The network generalizes to unseen viscosities by interpolation with 15–25% relative error across 0.01–1000 Pa·s, and its output's standard deviation across ten augmented views grows for strongly non-Newtonian fluids, suggesting inference uncertainty can flag shear-thinning behavior even when the model itself assumes Newtonian flow.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that fluid properties it does not measure—chiefly surface tension and contact angle—are either similar across the fluids it sees or too weak to change the flow's visible dynamics; this is the premise that breaks at low viscosity, where lowering surface tension shifted inferred viscosity upward by 40% for a ~10 mPa·s fluid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single inexpensive rig—one camera, one stepper motor, six vials—can produce thousands of quantitative viscosity estimates per day without sample cleanup or transfer, since vials are simply loaded, flipped, and filmed.
  • The method turns the widespread qualitative inverted-vial check into a screening tool usable in material discovery workflows, where 15–25% log-scale accuracy is adequate for ranking candidates.
  • Because the flow is gravity-driven at a known maximum stress (about 70 Pa), the method can estimate zero-shear viscosity of weakly non-Newtonian fluids, and the spread of the ten augmented inferences can flag strong non-Newtonian behavior without model changes.
  • The accuracy claims come with stated boundaries: errors grow near the lower viscosity end where surface-tension differences shift flow timescales, and fluids with opacity that hides the meniscus or drainage front are excluded unless the model is retrained on such samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 40% viscosity overestimate seen when surface tension is lowered suggests that adding surface tension (or contact angle) as an input feature would likely shrink low-viscosity errors; the paper proposes this but does not implement it.
  • If the learned features are truly regime-agnostic, the same architecture should transfer across vial sizes and volumes after fine-tuning on a modest number of new videos, since the model already handles regime transitions.
  • Standard deviation across augmentations could be calibrated against rheometry to give a quantitative non-Newtonian index, effectively turning inference uncertainty into a cheap pre-screening measurement for industrial fluids.
  • The success suggests other protorheology flows filmed on handheld devices—pouring, spreading, drop impact—could support the same inverse-learning strategy, potentially bringing quantitative rheology to field settings.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a computer-vision viscometer that infers Newtonian viscosity from videos of inverted vials. The hardware consists of a stepper motor that rotates a six-vial rack through 180°, a webcam recording 60 s at 2 fps (downsampled), and a CNN-BLSTM-attention network that maps 10 cropped, Sobel-filtered video snippets and the fluid density to a point estimate of viscosity. The training set comprises 960 videos obtained from 16 fluids measured at 6 temperatures (96 viscosity values from ≈3×10^-3 to ≈1.5×10^3 Pa·s, 10 videos each), with parallel-plate/cone-plate rotational rheometry as ground truth. The authors report two evaluations: an 'aleatoric' split (8 training / 2 test videos per viscosity) and an 'epistemic' split in which 13 viscosity values are held out from 83 training values. They report average relative residuals within 25% (15% above 0.1 Pa·s) for the epistemic split, and further test four shear-thinning viscoelastic polymer solutions, arguing that inference remains reliable when the flow Deborah number De and stress amplitude ratio A are both below unity, with larger output standard deviations serving as a proxy for strong non-Newtonian behavior. Additional experiments probe the influence of flip time, observation window, frame rate, fluid opacity, and surface tension; the latter shows up to 40% viscosity overestimation at ≈10 mPa·s when a surfactant is added.

Significance. The central idea — learning an approximate inverse map from raw videos of an uncontrolled, multi-regime flow to viscosity, using only density as a second input — is a credible and valuable contribution to protorheology and high-throughput materials characterization, provided that the generalization claims survive reuse. The paper has real strengths: the ground-truth viscosities come from standard rotational rheometry rather than from the model itself; the failure-mode analysis (tflip, tobs, frame rate, opacity, surface tension) is unusually candid and systematic; the non-Newtonian criterion (De<1, A<1 with σmax≈70 Pa) is falsifiable and supported by four independent fluids; and Table S1 provides full training data for the 96 viscosity values. The hardware is genuinely simple (one camera, one motor) and the multiplexing is a practical advantage. However, the epistemic evaluation is not a test of generalization to unseen fluids — the same fluids appear on both sides of the split, and the density input may allow the network to interpolate along known viscosity-temperature curves.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results (Training and measurement accuracy); Materials; Methods (Model training)] The 'epistemic' evaluation is not an evaluation on unseen fluids. The 96 viscosity values are generated from only 16 fluids at 6 temperatures (Materials and Table S1), and the split into 13 test values and 83 training values is described only as choosing viscosities 'in regions with the lowest density of training data points'; the paper does not state that the test values come from fluids absent from training, and since 13 is not a multiple of 6, at least one fluid necessarily appears on both sides of the split. Because the model receives density as an input and each fluid's density varies smoothly and almost monotonically with temperature, a network can in principle identify the fluid (and even the temperature) from the density scalar and interpolate along that fluid's smooth viscosity-temperature curve, using the video only for disambiguation. The reported epistemic residuals ('within 25%... within 15% above 0.1 Pa·s', Results) therefore reflect interpolation within known fluids rather than the generalization to new materials that the abstract's claim ('inferring viscosity over five orders of magnitude only from video recordings') requires. The genuinely unseen fluids in the paper are only the four non-Newtonian solutions, which span roughly two decades (≈0.24–24 Pa·s) and of which one fails the proposed De/A criterion. I request: (i) an epistemic split performed at the level of whole fluids (e.g., hold out 2–3 fluids, i.e., 12–18 viscosities) with retraining and updated error statistics; (ii) an ablation in which the density input is blinded or removed, to quantify how much of the accuracy comes from the video; and (iii) a statement of which, if any, held-out viscosities share a fluid with the training set.
  2. [Discussion (surface-tension paragraph); Fig. S6] The unqualified headline accuracy is not supported at the low-viscosity end of the claimed range. The abstract states 'relative errors below 25%' across 0.01–1000 Pa·s, and the Results state epistemic average residuals 'within 25% for viscosities ranging from 0.01 Pa·s to 0.1 Pa·s'. However, the surfactant experiments (Supplementary Information, 'Effects of surface tension', Fig. S6) show that reducing surface tension of a 10 mPa·s fluid produces a ~40% viscosity overestimate, decreasing to ~20% at 1 Pa·s. The epistemic test cannot reveal this because the 16 Newtonian training fluids share similar surface tensions and contact angles, which is exactly the condition the authors state after Eq. (4) ('must either remain similar across training and testing fluids or have a negligible influence'). The paper should qualify the abstract and Results claims (e.g., 'for fluids whose surface tension and contact angle are similar to the training set'), or add surface tension and contact angle as inputs, as the Discussion itself proposes; as written, the 25% figure at 0.01 Pa·s overstates robustness for a method whose stated purpose is screening arbitrary new materials.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Results (Training and measurement accuracy)] The sentence 'This likely explains the larger errors and deviations observed for viscosities below 0.01 mPa·s' should read 'below 0.01 Pa·s' (or 'below 10 mPa·s'); 0.01 mPa·s is 10^-5 Pa·s, far outside the experimental range.
  2. [Supplementary Information, Detailed description of the flow] The sentence 'Although we observe a slight asymmetry from flipping, the flow here is approximately asymmetric' is self-contradictory; presumably 'axisymmetric' was intended.
  3. [Discussion (flow regimes and non-dimensional analysis)] The relational symbols in 'η g 30 Pa·s', 'η f 1 Pa·s', 'Re j 1', and 'Bo k 1' appear to be corrupted (likely ≥, ≤, ≫, ≪); the rendering should be corrected, since these inequalities are used in the dynamic-range argument.
  4. [Supplementary Information, Estimation of non-dimensional numbers] The surface tension of the test fluids is reported as 'in the range of [30-50] N/m'; this must be mN/m, otherwise the Bond numbers quoted (Bo ≈ 10–17) would be off by three orders of magnitude.
  5. [General] The manuscript lacks a data/code availability statement; releasing the trained network, the video dataset, and the Table S1 metadata would materially strengthen reproducibility, given that the central result is a trained estimator.
  6. [Results (Non-Newtonian tests); Fig. 6D] The proposal that the output standard deviation serves as a proxy for strong non-Newtonian behavior rests on a single fluid (1 wt% 8M PEO); an additional failing example, or a quantitative threshold on the standard deviation, would make the claim more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the viscosity predictor is trained against external rotational rheometry data and evaluated on held-out videos; no target quantity is defined through the model, and the supporting scaling and Ellis-model analyses rest on independent measurements.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper's forward statements (Eqs. 1-3) are definitions of the flow field and its formal inverse, while Eq. 4 is a hypothesis that a neural network can approximate the inverse map from optical features and density. The network is trained with ground-truth viscosities from cone-and-plate and parallel-plate rotational rheometry (Methods - Rheometry), an external benchmark, and the density input is measured or taken from manufacturer certificates. Aleatoric evaluation holds out videos of viscosities that appear in training, and epistemic evaluation holds out viscosity values not seen in training; in neither case is the predicted viscosity constructed from the fitted model's own output or defined in terms of the video features. Even if the epistemic split permits some fluid-identity leakage, that is a generalization-validity concern, not circularity, because the model still must map video and density to an externally measured viscosity value. The non-Newtonian analysis is also non-circular: Ellis-model parameters (Table S2) are fitted to independent steady-shear rheometry data and are used only to interpret whether the inverted-vial inference should match the zero-shear viscosity; they are not used as training labels or as the quantity being predicted from video. The surface-tension limitation is explicitly acknowledged as a missing input to Eq. 4, and the surfactant experiments demonstrate an admitted systematic error rather than a result forced by construction. Self-citations to protorheology references [12,17,18] supply conceptual framing and stress/timescale estimates, but the load-bearing stress estimate (σmax = ΔρgR ≈ 70 Pa) and the Buckingham-Pi scaling are derived within the paper or from classical fluid mechanics, not imported as an unverified premise. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central claim is therefore self-contained against an external rheometry benchmark, and no circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is an empirical ML model, so the main free parameter is the neural network itself. The supporting physical interpretation uses standard fluid-mechanics approximations and fits of Ellis parameters to independent rheology data. No new physical entities are postulated. The most fragile unstated assumption is that unmeasured surface tension and contact angle are benign for the target viscosity range.

free parameters (2)
  • Neural network weights and biases of f^{-1} = Not reported (architecture under-specified)
    The supervised CNN-BLSTM-attention network is trained on 9,600 augmented videos to map visual features plus density to viscosity. This is the central fitted model; no parameter count or architecture details are given.
  • Ellis model parameters eta0, k, a for non-Newtonian fluids = e.g., 1wt% 8M PEO: eta0=13.9 Pa.s, k=0.27 1/Pa, a=3; 25wt% PVP: eta0=24.1 Pa.s, k=0.0021 1/Pa, a=1.98 (Table S2)
    Used to estimate sigma_crit and the dimensionless nonlinearity A for the four polymer solutions. Fit to the authors' own steady-shear data, not to the CV inference.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The fluid is Newtonian with constant viscosity and density (Eq. 2).
    The inversion problem is posed for a Newtonian fluid. Non-Newtonian inference is only expected to work when De<<1 and A<<1, as stated in the Discussion.
  • domain assumption Video-visible optical features [A] are a sufficiently sensitive and unique proxy for the flow field to allow viscosity inference (Eq. 4).
    The paper's central learning hypothesis. The network uses only the front-view pixel intensities, not velocity fields; the hypothesis is validated empirically but cannot be proven for all fluids.
  • domain assumption Unmeasured properties, mainly surface tension and contact angle, are similar across training and test fluids or have negligible influence on the flow.
    Stated in the paragraph after Eq. 4. Surfactant tests (Fig. S6) show violations cause up to 40 percent viscosity overestimation at low viscosity.
  • domain assumption An inverse map g^{-1} exists and is single-valued over the target viscosity range (Eq. 3).
    The paper hypothesizes existence; the success of the trained network is used as evidence. Non-unique mappings (e.g., identical video appearance for different viscosity history) would break inference.
  • domain assumption Ground truth viscosity from rotational rheometry at shear rate 10 s^-1 is the true viscosity for Newtonian training fluids.
    The training labels come from steady-shear cone-and-plate measurements (Methods-Rheometry). Honey and corn syrup are treated as Newtonian at this shear rate.
  • standard math Buckingham Pi analysis and thin-film drainage equations approximate the flow stress and timescales (Eqs. S1 to S9).
    Used to estimate sigma_max, Re, Bo, and to motivate the observed dynamic range. The paper acknowledges these are rough approximations for the complex three-regime flow.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-throughput viscometry via machine-learning from videos of inverted vials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDXOIGJE

@misc{pith2026250602034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-throughput viscometry via machine-learning from videos of inverted vials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDXOIGJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02034}
}
read the original abstract

Although the inverted vial test has been widely used as a qualitative method for estimating fluid viscosity, quantitative rheological characterization has remained limited due to its complex, uncontrolled flow - driven by gravity, surface tension, inertia, and initial conditions. Here, we present a computer vision (CV) viscometer that automates the inverted vial test and enables quantitative viscosity inference across nearly five orders of magnitude (0.01-1000 Pas), without requiring direct velocity field measurements. The system simultaneously inverts multiple vials and records videos of the evolving fluid, which are fed into a neural network that approximates the inverse function from visual features and known fluid density. Despite the complex, multi-regime flow within the vial, our approach achieves relative errors below 25%, improving to 15% for viscosities above 0.1 Pas. When tested on non-Newtonian polymer solutions, the method reliably estimates zero-shear viscosity as long as viscoelastic or shear-thinning behaviors remain negligible within the flow regime. Moreover, high standard deviations in the inferred values may serve as a proxy for identifying fluids with strong non-Newtonian behavior. The CV viscometer requires only one camera and one motor, is contactless and low-cost, and can be easily integrated into high-throughput experimental automated and manual workflows. Transcending traditional characterization paradigms, our method leverages uncontrolled flows and visual features to achieve simplicity and scalability, enabling high-throughput viscosity inference that can meet the growing demand of data-driven material models while remaining accessible to lower resource environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflows for (A) Measurement of viscosity using small angle cone and plate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the computer vision (CV) viscometer for 6 parallel measurements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Videos and image processing of the inverted vial test. (A) Schematic of the image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inferred viscosities (A) and relative residuals (B) for fluids with viscosities the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The fluid flow behavior and forcing stress during the inverted vial test. (A) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Steady shear rheometry (symbols) and inverted vial inference (solid lines) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    VL Deringer, et al., Gaussian process regression for materials and molecules. Chem. Rev. 121, 10073–10141 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    TP McFadden, et al., Using data science tools to reveal and understand subtle relationships of inhibitor structure in frontal ring-opening metathesis polymerization. J. Am. Chem. Soc. (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Nature 559, 377–381 (2018)

    JM Granda, L Donina, V Dragone, DL Long, L Cronin, Controlling an organic synthesis robot with machine learning to search for new reactivity. Nature 559, 377–381 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    L Himanen, A Geurts, AS Foster, P Rinke, Data-driven materials science: status, challenges, and perspectives. Adv. Sci. 6, 1900808 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    (Wiley-VCH, New York), p

    CW Macosko, Rheology: Principles, Measurements, and Applications. (Wiley-VCH, New York), p. 576 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    RH Ewoldt, C Saengow, Designing complex fluids. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 54, 413–441 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    JJ Lessard, et al., Unraveling reactivity differences: Room-temperature ring-opening metathesis polymerization (romp) versus frontal romp. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 146, 7216–7221 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Complex fluids biological systems: experiment, theory, computation pp

    RH Ewoldt, MT Johnston, LM Caretta, Experimental challenges of shear rheology: how to avoid bad data. Complex fluids biological systems: experiment, theory, computation pp. 207–241 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Anton Paar GmbH, Htr rheometer: Automation for high sample throughput and complex sample handling (2024) Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2024

  2. [10]

    CJ Pipe, TS Majmudar, GH McKinley, High shear rate viscometry. Rheol. Acta 47, 621–642 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Sensors Actuators B: Chem

    BA Bircher, R Krenger, T Braun, Automated high-throughput viscosity and density sensor using nanomechanical resonators. Sensors Actuators B: Chem. 223, 784–790 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    MT Hossain, RH Ewoldt, Protorheology. J. Rheol. 68, 113–144 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    fifty-cent rheometer

    N Roussel, P Coussot, “fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress measurements: From slump to spreading flow. J. Rheol. 49, 705–718 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    A Rinkens, CV Verhoosel, NO Jaensson, Uncertainty quantification for the squeeze flow of generalized newtonian fluids. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 322, 105154 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    GH McKinley, A Tripathi, How to extract the newtonian viscosity from capillary breakup measurements in a filament rheometer. J. Rheol. 44, 653–670 (2000)

    2000

  8. [16]

    M Walker, G Pizzuto, H Fakhruldeen, AI Cooper, Go with the flow: deep learning methods for autonomous viscosity estimations. Digit. Discov. 2, 1540–1547 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    MT Hossain, R Tiwari, RH Ewoldt, Protorheology in practice: avoiding misinterpretation. Curr. Opin. Colloid & Interface Sci. p. 101866 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    MT Hossain, RH Ewoldt, Do-it-yourself rheometry. Phys. Fluids 34, 053105 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Colloids Surfaces A: Physicochem

    Y Li, et al., Double-layer temperature-sensitive hydrogel fabricated by 4d printing with fast shape deformation. Colloids Surfaces A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 648, 129307 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    F Mirahmadi, M Tafazzoli-Shadpour, MA Shokrgozar, S Bonakdar, Enhanced mechanical properties of thermosensitive chitosan hydrogel by silk fibers for cartilage tissue engineering. Mater. science engineering: c 33, 4786–4794 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Food Biosci

    EA Chu, et al., Robust sugar alcohol with lecithin functionalities for sustainable gelation of edible oils. Food Biosci. 55, 103068 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    ACS Appl

    H Choudhary, MB Rudy, MB Dowling, SR Raghavan, Foams with enhanced rheology for stopping bleeding. ACS Appl. Mater. & Interfaces 13, 13958–13967 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Macromolecules 40, 1165–1173 (2007)

    C Hiemstra, LJ van der Aa, Z Zhong, PJ Dijkstra, J Feijen, Novel in situ forming, degradable dextran hydrogels by michael addition chemistry: synthesis, rheology, and degradation. Macromolecules 40, 1165–1173 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Biomacromolecules 14, 3172–3182 (2013)

    A Petit, et al., Effect of polymer composition on rheological and degradation properties of temperature-responsive gelling systems composed of acyl-capped pcla-peg-pcla. Biomacromolecules 14, 3172–3182 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Korea-Australia Rheol

    SY Kim, et al., Synthesis of bioadhesive phea hydrogels without crosslinkers through in situ polymerization and sustained mechanical mixing. Korea-Australia Rheol. J. 36, 71–78 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    ACS Macro Lett

    I Arretche, et al., Active learning guided optimization of frontal ring-opening metathesis polymerization via alkylidene modification. ACS Macro Lett. 14, 525–531 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    P Gilormini, H Teyss `edre, On using the levelling of the free surface of a newtonian fluid to measure viscosity and navier slip length. Proc. Royal Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 469, 20130457 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    M Flaschel, S Kumar, L De Lorenzis, Automated discovery of generalized standard material models with euclid. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 405, 115867 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    M Mahmoudabadbozchelou, KM Kamani, SA Rogers, S Jamali, Digital rheometer twins: Learning the hidden rheology of complex fluids through rheology-informed graph neural networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2202234119 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    KR Lennon, et al., Anticipating gelation and vitrification with medium amplitude parallel superposition (maps) rheology and artificial neural networks. Rheol. Acta 62, 535–556 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    I Bahiuddin, et al., Review of modeling schemes and machine learning algorithms for fluid rheological behavior analysis. J. Mech. Behav. Mater. 33, 20220309 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    PLoS computational biology 16, e1008018 (2020)

    JJR van Assen, S Nishida, RW Fleming, Visual perception of liquids: Insights from deep neural networks. PLoS computational biology 16, e1008018 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    VM MS, V Menon, Measuring viscosity of fluids: A deep learning approach using a cnn-rnn architecture in Proceedings of the First International Conference on AI-ML Systems. pp. 1–5 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    M De Micco, G D’Avino, M Trofa, MM Villone, PL Maffettone, Machine-learning-based measurement of relaxation time via particle ordering. J. Rheol. 68, 801–813 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    A Kontogiannis, R Hodgkinson, S Reynolds, EL Manchester, Learning rheological parameters of non-newtonian fluids from velocimetry data. J. Fluid Mech. 1011, R3 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    A Bran, C Balan, Fluid rheology prediction using interface detection and machine learning regression. Phys. Fluids 37 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Conanstruction Build

    M Coenen, C Vogel, T Schack, M Haist, Deep concrete flow: Deep learning based characterisation of fresh concrete properties from open-channel flow using spatio-temporal flow fields. Conanstruction Build. Mater. 411, 134809 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    RD Weeks, JM Ruddock, JD Berrigan, JA Lewis, JO Hardin, In-situ rheology measurements via machine-learning enhanced direct-ink-writing. Adv. Intell. Syst. 7, 2400293 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Inverse Probl

    A Kontogiannis, SV Elgersma, AJ Sederman, MP Juniper, Bayesian inverse navier–stokes problems: joint flow field reconstruction and parameter learning. Inverse Probl. 41, 015008 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02604 (2024)

    A Kontogiannis, R Hodgkinson, EL Manchester, Learning rheological parameters of non-newtonian fluids from velocimetry data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02604 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    KD Jensen, Flow measurements. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 26, 400–419 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Process

    W Du, Y Wang, Y Qiao, Recurrent spatial-temporal attention network for action recognition in videos. IEEE Transactions on Image Process. 27, 1347–1360 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Z Li, K Gavrilyuk, E Gavves, M Jain, CG Snoek, Videolstm convolves, attends and flows for action recognition. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 166, 41–50 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    J Lin, Sh Zhong, A Fares, Deep hierarchical lstm networks with attention for video summarization. Comput. & Electr. Eng. 97, 107618 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    R Davies, GI Taylor, The mechanics of large bubbles rising through extended liquids and through liquids in tubes. Proc. Royal Soc. London. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 200, 375–390 (1950)

    1950

  38. [46]

    D Picchi, J Suckale, I Battiato, Taylor drop in a closed vertical pipe. J. Fluid Mech. 902, A19 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    E Zukoski, Influence of viscosity, surface tension, and inclination angle on motion of long bubbles in closed tubes. J. Fluid Mech. 25, 821–837 (1966)

    1966

  40. [48]

    C Gutfinger, JA Tallmadge, Some remarks on the problem of drainage of fluids on vertical surfaces. AIChE J. 10, 774–780 (1964)

    1964

  41. [49]

    HE Huppert, VA Kuzkin, SO Kraeva, Viscous gravity currents over flat inclined surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 931, A12 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    C Bonnoit, T Darnige, E Clement, A Lindner, Inclined plane rheometry of a dense granular suspension. J. Rheol. 54, 65–79 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    TS Lin, L Kondic, Thin films flowing down inverted substrates: Two dimensional flow. Phys. Fluids 22 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    (Elsevier) Vol

    RI Tanner, K Walters, Rheology: an historical perspective. (Elsevier) Vol. 7, (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    N Ramlawi, MT Hossain, A Shetty, RH Ewoldt, Stress-controlled medium-amplitude oscillatory shear (maostress) of pva–borax. J. Rheol. 68, 741–763 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    (John Wiley & Sons), (1980)

    JD Ferry, Viscoelastic properties of polymers. (John Wiley & Sons), (1980)

    1980

  47. [55]

    RB Bird, RC Armstrong, O Hassager, Dynamics of polymeric liquids. Vol. 1, 2nd Ed. : Fluid mechanics. (John Wiley and Sons Inc.,New York, NY), (1987)

    1987

  48. [56]

    ACS Comb

    S Deshmukh, et al., A novel high-throughput viscometer. ACS Comb. Sci. 18, 405–414 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Nature 300, 427–429 (1982)

    HE Huppert, Flow and instability of a viscous current down a slope. Nature 300, 427–429 (1982)

    1982

  50. [58]

    C Ma, S Hu, G Dong, B Li, Fingering instability of a gravity-driven thin film flowing down a vertical tube with wall slippage. Appl. Sci. 10, 76 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    H Jeffreys, The draining of a vertical plate. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 26, 204–205 (1930)

    1930

  52. [60]

    C Gutfinger, JA Tallmadge, Some remarks on the problem of drainage of fluids on vertical surfaces. AIChE J. 10, 774–780185 (1964)

    1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.