REVIEW 1 cited by
A comprehensive analysis of PINNs: Variants, Applications, and Challenges
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
A comprehensive analysis of PINNs: Variants, Applications, and Challenges
read the original abstract
Physics Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) have been emerging as a powerful computational tool for solving differential equations. However, the applicability of these models is still in its initial stages and requires more standardization to gain wider popularity. Through this survey, we present a comprehensive overview of PINNs approaches exploring various aspects related to their architecture, variants, areas of application, real-world use cases, challenges, and so on. Even though existing surveys can be identified, they fail to provide a comprehensive view as they primarily focus on either different application scenarios or limit their study to a superficial level. This survey attempts to bridge the gap in the existing literature by presenting a detailed analysis of all these factors combined with recent advancements and state-of-the-art research in PINNs. Additionally, we discuss prevalent challenges in PINNs implementation and present some of the future research directions as well. The overall contributions of the survey can be summarised into three sections: A detailed overview of PINNs architecture and variants, a performance analysis of PINNs on different equations and application domains highlighting their features. Finally, we present a detailed discussion of current issues and future research directions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A physics-informed neural network approach to the point defect model for electrochemical oxide film growth
A hybrid PINN anchored by one FEM data point reproduces point-defect-model film thicknesses to about 1% error, while the pure PINN overpredicts by 2,400-5,700%.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.