Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

A Pioneering Neural Network Method for Efficient and Robust Fluid Simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A neural network trained on point clouds can simulate fuel sloshing in complex tanks with accuracy close to traditional SPH and speed over 300 times that of grid-based solvers.

desk verdict New architecture and dataset for learned fuel sloshing, but the real takeoff generalization claim is not supported by the impulse-only training data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10748 v3 pith:NZE6B76Y submitted 2024-12-14 cs.CV cs.GRcs.LGphysics.flu-dyn

Yu Chen , Shuai Zheng , Nianyi Wang , Menglong Jin , Yan Chang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GRcs.LGphysics.flu-dyn
keywords fluidsimulationneuralnetworkfuelsloshingpointcloudcontinuousconvolutionmomentumconservationposition-basedfluidsaircrafttank
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 sets out to show that fluid simulation for fuel sloshing inside complex aircraft tanks can be learned rather than computed: it treats fuel as a point cloud and trains a neural network to predict the next particle positions and velocities under the position-based fluids scheme. The central claim is that this is the first learned simulator stable enough for ribbed tanks under pitch and roll rotations from −90 to 90 degrees, with accuracy close to a traditional SPH ground truth while running roughly ten times faster than SPH and more than three hundred times faster than a grid-based commercial solver. The paper also contributes a 320,000-frame dataset of fuel surfaces in four tank types and a W+T training schedule that rolls predictions forward before computing loss, which it says is what gives long-term stability. A sympathetic reader would care because, if true, this replaces hour-scale CFD runs with minute-scale inference for a practically important class of aircraft engineering problems.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Triangle Feature Fusion (TFF) module, a learned gating layer that combines three feature pathways: a standard continuous convolution for expressive fluid dynamics, an antisymmetric continuous convolution whose kernel pairs enforce momentum conservation, and a fully connected path that injects global fluid state. The module concatenates each branch feature with the global feature, passes them through convolutions, and uses a sigmoid to produce a fusion weight $\omega$ that interpolates between the two local branches. Three instantiations of the same module handle fuel-tank coupling, inter-layer fusion, and a residual shortcut. The training regime also matters: the network unrolls $W$ warm-up steps and then computes loss over $T$ subsequent steps, letting errors compound during training so the learned corrections become stable over long rollouts.

What would settle it

A direct test would simulate a fuel tank rotating about pitch or roll at a realistic angular speed while the fuel is still moving, generate ground truth with the same SPH solver used for training, and measure the network's n-frame sequence error over 400 frames. If the error approaches the level that the paper reports for prior methods on the training distribution, then the instant-rotation assumption in data generation, not the fusion architecture, is what limits real-world robustness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that a neural network designed around a triangle feature fusion can simultaneously fit fluid dynamics, obey momentum conservation, and keep global motion bounded, and that this combination is what lets it survive the complexity of real fuel-tank internals. The network fuses features from a continuous convolution, an antisymmetric momentum-conserving convolution, and a fully connected global path, with the fusion weight learned per location. On the authors' Fueltank dataset it reports the lowest short-term errors, the lowest n-frame sequence error, and the lowest maximum density error among the learned methods compared, while matching the qualitative behavior of traditional SPH in tanks that cause prior learned methods to collapse. The paper extends the claim to an aircraft takeoff profile, where the learned simulator finishes in about two minutes versus nearly ten hours for the grid-based software.

Load-bearing premise

The dataset, the network's only training source, is built by rotating the tank from −90 to 90 degrees almost instantly and assuming the fuel remains stationary during the rotation; if real fuel sloshes during the rotation itself, the training distribution is biased and the claimed generalization to real maneuvers is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, fuel sloshing evaluations that currently take hours in grid-based software can be run in minutes, making interactive cockpit or tank-design iteration feasible.
  • The unrolled W+T training rule, if confirmed, means long-horizon stability can be trained without memory blow-up, and it should transfer to other learned particle simulators.
  • The network's demonstrated generalization from the dataset to a continuous takeoff rotation suggests the learned simulator may serve as a fast surrogate for maneuvers not in the training set.
  • A reliable learned sloshing surrogate would let engineers search over fuel loads, maneuver profiles, and rib geometries that would otherwise be too expensive to explore.
  • The reported density errors suggest the learned simulator maintains incompressibility well enough to be used as a qualitative and early-design tool, not only a visualization aid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the dataset assumes the fuel remains stationary during each tank rotation, the strongest test of the method would be a continuous-rotation benchmark in which sloshing and rotation overlap; the paper's takeoff experiment approximates this but only with a rapid return to level.
  • Counting the cost of generating the SPH training data and training the network, the end-to-end speed advantage over classical solvers for a single one-off simulation would be smaller than the reported 300x inference speedup; the advantage is clearest when many simulations share the same physics.
  • The architecture's separation of local dynamics, physical constraints, and global control is a reusable pattern for other particle-based physical systems, such as granular flows or deformable solids, though the paper only demonstrates fuel.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a neural network fluid simulator for fuel sloshing in complex aircraft tank geometries, built on a position-based fluids (PBF) scheme with continuous convolution kernels (CConv and ASCC) and a new Triangle Feature Fusion (TFF) design. The authors construct a DFSPH-generated 'Fueltank' dataset of 320,000 frames across four tank types under instantaneous pitch/roll rotations, train the network with a W+T unrolling strategy and a density-weighted MAE loss, and report comparisons against CConv, DMCF, TIE, DualFluidNet, and traditional solvers. The central claims are that the method is the first neural network robust enough for fuel sloshing in complex tanks, that it achieves accuracy comparable to traditional methods, and that it is about 10 times faster than SPH and more than 300 times faster than Flow3D.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a practically relevant step toward learned fluids for aircraft fuel-tank sloshing, a scenario with complex boundaries, large orientation changes, and long simulation horizons. The paper contributes a new challenging dataset, a plausible architecture for combining local convolution, momentum-preserving kernels, and global features, and an ablation study quantifying each module. These are substantive strengths. However, the significance is conditional on three load-bearing points that currently lack support: generalization from impulse-only training to gradual maneuvers, controlled measurement of the advertised speed-ups, and full specification of the training procedure. The manuscript is also not fully reproducible as written, since no code or data release is stated and key hyperparameters are missing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Construction Strategy and Figure 7] The training distribution consists of impulsive reorientations: the text says 'these rotations are performed in a very short time, assuming the fuel remains stationary during the rotation,' followed by 400 frames of sloshing under a fixed gravity direction. The takeoff experiment in Figure 7, however, is a gradual pitch ramp from 0 to 20 degrees at 2 degrees per second; the stationary-surface approximation is invoked only for the rapid return from t2 to t3. The network therefore never trains on a tank whose orientation changes while the fluid is evolving, so the central claim of robustness in real maneuvers is not established. Please provide a quantitative evaluation on a gradually rotated tank (for example, DFSPH error under the same pitch profile), or train and test on finite-rate rotation sequences, and describe how the Figure 7 rollout was actually generated.
  2. [Table 1 and Figure 9] The headline speed claims are not supported by controlled measurements with stated conditions. In Table 1, the Grid-based and SPH-based rows report only '>50' and '>1' with no unit specification and no error columns, while the neural methods report times in a column labeled 'Time (s)'. The Flow3D comparison in Figure 9 gives 'nearly 10 hours' versus '2 minutes' for a single scenario, but no information is given about the grid resolution, particle counts, solver tolerances, hardware, or whether the Flow3D run was configured to a comparable accuracy level. Please report a measurement protocol, the exact tank/particle setup, and runtimes on identical geometries so the 10x and 300x claims can be assessed.
  3. [Training Strategy, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The training objective is underspecified. The exponent gamma in Eq. (9) is never given, and the W+T strategy is described only by 'the value of W is adjusted according to training progress and the difficulty of the examples,' without a concrete schedule or values for W and T. Since the paper attributes the long-term stability improvement to the W+T strategy and Eq. (10) defines the training loss, the reader cannot reproduce the experiments or determine whether the reported gains come from the strategy or from the specific W/T choices. Please report the schedule, the values used, and ideally a sensitivity study on W and T.
  4. [Evaluation Metrics, Eq. (12), Table 1] The maximum density error is defined in Eq. (12) as a dimensionless ratio involving predicted and ground-truth maximum densities, yet Table 1 labels the column in g/cm3, which is inconsistent. Moreover, the metric compares predicted and ground-truth maxima rather than measuring deviation from the physical fluid density, so it is a distributional mismatch measure rather than a direct incompressibility error. In addition, no repeated trials, seeds, or error bars are reported anywhere in the quantitative tables, so the significance of margins such as dn 25.310 mm vs 35.318 mm for DualFluidNet cannot be assessed. Please clarify the metric and report variance across runs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Experiments on Fueltank dataset] The sentence 'its long-term stability is inferior to our network's W+T training strategy, as discussed in .' contains an empty cross-reference; the missing section or equation should be supplied.
  2. [Construction Strategy] The dataset description does not list the DFSPH solver parameters (smoothing kernel, time step, boundary handling, solver iterations), which makes regeneration of the dataset difficult.
  3. [Figure 7] The qualitative Flow3D comparison in Figure 9 is shown only after t3; please include comparisons during the gradual ramp and hold phases, since those are the phases where the training-distribution mismatch is most relevant.
  4. [Introduction] The abstract and contribution list emphasize being 'the first' in several respects; these novelty claims should be backed by a more systematic comparison with prior datasets and neural fluid models, or softened.
  5. [Experimental Setup] The filter radius R = 4.5h and resolution [4,4,4] are stated, but the mapping function Lambda and the window function a in Eq. (1) are not fully specified, so the continuous convolution implementation is not reproducible without the code.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: predictions are trained and measured against DFSPH ground truth; the only self-citations are baselines and non-load-bearing related-work support.

full rationale

The paper's chain is empirical, not derivational. The network is trained with a supervised loss (Eq. 9) against DFSPH-generated ground truth (Bender and Koschier 2015) on the Fueltank dataset, and accuracy is measured with Chamfer Distance, Earth Mover Distance, and sequence error against the same DFSPH ground truth in Table 1. Using the simulator as both training target and evaluation reference is standard supervised-learning practice and not a logical circularity: the claim is that the learned mapping replicates the simulator faster, not that the simulator follows from the network. The speed comparisons (approximately 10x SPH, approximately 300x Flow3D) are reported timings, not derived quantities. The only self-citations are (i) 'the CConv (Ummenhofer et al. 2019) has been validated by (Prantl et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2024) as a stable foundation for fluid dynamics modeling,' where the independent Prantl et al. validation carries the same point, and (ii) DualFluidNet as a comparison baseline in Table 1. Neither is load-bearing for the central claim, and the DualFluidNet comparison is an empirical baseline, not a premise. The dataset construction says rotations are 'performed in a very short time, assuming the fuel remains stationary during the rotation,' and the takeoff caption similarly assumes the fuel surface is unchanged during the rapid t2-to-t3 return. These are physical-validity and generalization limitations for real maneuvers; they do not make any equation reduce to its own input. The takeoff experiment lacks quantitative metrics and the cross-reference 'as discussed in .' is missing, but these are reporting gaps, not circularity. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim depends on a set of hand-set hyperparameters and on assumptions about the fidelity of DFSPH and the realism of the instantaneous-rotation dataset. No new physical entities are introduced; the Triangle Feature Fusion is an architectural device.

free parameters (5)
  • c_avg = 40
    Average neighbor count used to weight the per-particle loss in Eq. 9; set by hand.
  • gamma (loss exponent) = not specified
    Exponent in Eq. 9 is written as gamma but never defined in the text.
  • W and T (training strategy) = not specified
    W is adjusted during training and T is the gradient horizon, but exact values are omitted.
  • spherical filter resolution and radius = [4,4,4], R=4.5h
    Hyperparameters for the continuous convolution kernels used in the network.
  • learning rate schedule = 0.002 halved at 15000, 25000, ..., 55000
    Training schedule chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFSPH simulations are treated as high-fidelity ground truth for real fuel sloshing.
    The Fueltank dataset and all quantitative evaluation use DFSPH as ground truth; if DFSPH is inaccurate for complex tanks, the network inherits the error.
  • domain assumption Fuel remains stationary during the near-instantaneous tank rotations used to generate training data.
    The dataset assumes fuel does not move during -90 to 90 degree pitch and roll changes; real aircraft maneuvers are not instantaneous, so this may bias the learned dynamics.
  • domain assumption The PBF scheme with a neural network predicting internal forces is a valid simulator structure.
    The method wraps the network around the position-based fluids update; the central speed and stability results depend on this decomposition being sound.
  • standard math Momentum conservation is enforced exactly by the antisymmetric kernel (ASCC).
    Equation 4 states the double integral of interparticle forces is zero; this follows from the antisymmetric construction, but the paper does not verify it numerically after discretization.
  • ad hoc to paper The W+T training strategy improves long-term stability without increasing memory.
    The values of W and T are not specified, and no ablation isolates W+T from standard two-frame training, so this claimed benefit is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Pioneering Neural Network Method for Efficient and Robust Fluid Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZE6B76Y

@misc{pith2026241210748,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Pioneering Neural Network Method for Efficient and Robust Fluid Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZE6B76Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10748}
}
read the original abstract

Fluid simulation is an important research topic in computer graphics (CG) and animation in video games. Traditional methods based on Navier-Stokes equations are computationally expensive. In this paper, we treat fluid motion as point cloud transformation and propose the first neural network method specifically designed for efficient and robust fluid simulation in complex environments. This model is also the deep learning model that is the first to be capable of stably modeling fluid particle dynamics in such complex scenarios. Our triangle feature fusion design achieves an optimal balance among fluid dynamics modeling, momentum conservation constraints, and global stability control. We conducted comprehensive experiments on datasets. Compared to existing neural network-based fluid simulation algorithms, we significantly enhanced accuracy while maintaining high computational speed. Compared to traditional SPH methods, our speed improved approximately 10 times. Furthermore, compared to traditional fluid simulation software such as Flow3D, our computation speed increased by more than 300 times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10748 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Position-based fluids scheme. It first computes ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of our network and Triangle Feature Fusion (TFF). The three types of TFF modules share the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Construction strategy of Fueltank dataset. We use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of four tank types from the Fueltank dataset. The fuel tank undergoes random pitch and roll rotations at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative experiments on Tank II show that ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We simulated the aircraft’s takeoff process, where the pitch angle gradually increases from 0 to 20 degrees at a pitch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative results of the ablation study, further [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W.; Rogers, B

    Alshaer, A. W.; Rogers, B. D.; and Li, L. 2017. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) modelling of transient heat transfer in pulsed laser ablation of Al and associated free-surface problems. Computational Materials Science, 127: 161--179

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Battaglia, P.; Pascanu, R.; Lai, M.; Jimenez Rezende, D.; et al. 2016. Interaction networks for learning about objects, relations and physics. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29

    2016

  3. [3]

    Bender, J.; and Koschier, D. 2015. Divergence-free smoothed particle hydrodynamics. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation, 147--155

    2015

  4. [4]

    Cai, S.; Mao, Z.; Wang, Z.; Yin, M.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2021. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 37(12): 1727--1738

    2021

  5. [5]

    Calderon Sanchez, J.; Gonz \'a lez, L.; Marrone, S.; Colagrossi, A.; and Gambioli, F. 2019. A SPH simulation of the sloshing phenomenon inside fuel tanks of the aircraft wings

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Chen, Y.; and Shi, P. 2023. Rotation-Invariant Completion Network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11979

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Chen, Y.; Zheng, S.; Jin, M.; Chang, Y.; and Wang, N. 2024. DualFluidNet: An attention-based dual-pipeline network for fluid simulation. Neural Networks, 177: 106401

    2024

  8. [8]

    Koschier, D.; Bender, J.; Solenthaler, B.; and Teschner, M. 2020. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics techniques for the physics based simulation of fluids and solids. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06944

    arXiv 2020

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Li, B.; Liu, H.; and Zheng, S. 2018. Multidisciplinary topology optimization for reduction of sloshing in aircraft fuel tanks based on SPH simulation. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, 58: 1719--1736

    2018

  2. [10]

    B.; and Torralba, A

    Li, Y.; Wu, J.; Tedrake, R.; Tenenbaum, J. B.; and Torralba, A. 2018. Learning particle dynamics for manipulating rigid bodies, deformable objects, and fluids. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01566

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ling, J.; Kurzawski, A.; and Templeton, J. 2016. Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 807: 155--166

    2016

  4. [12]

    Liu, Z.; Wu, S.; Xu, C.; Wang, X.; Zhu, L.; Wu, S.; and Feng, F. 2022. Copy motion from one to another: Fake motion video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01373

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Macklin, M.; and M \"u ller, M. 2013. Position based fluids. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 32(4): 1--12

    2013

  6. [14]

    J.; and Witherden, F

    Morton, J.; Jameson, A.; Kochenderfer, M. J.; and Witherden, F. 2018. Deep dynamical modeling and control of unsteady fluid flows. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31

    2018

  7. [15]

    F.; Tenenbaum, J.; and Yamins, D

    Mrowca, D.; Zhuang, C.; Wang, E.; Haber, N.; Fei-Fei, L. F.; Tenenbaum, J.; and Yamins, D. L. 2018. Flexible neural representation for physics prediction. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    2018

  8. [16]

    Pourabdian, M.; Omidvar, P.; and Morad, M. R. 2017. Multiphase simulation of liquid jet breakup using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 28(04): 1750054

    2017

  9. [17]

    Prantl, L.; Ummenhofer, B.; Koltun, V.; and Thuerey, N. 2022. Guaranteed conservation of momentum for learning particle-based fluid dynamics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 6901--6913

    2022

  10. [18]

    R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; and Guibas, L

    Qi, C. R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; and Guibas, L. J. 2017 a . Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 652--660

    2017

  11. [19]

    R.; Yi, L.; Su, H.; and Guibas, L

    Qi, C. R.; Yi, L.; Su, H.; and Guibas, L. J. 2017 b . Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  12. [20]

    Saha, P.; Dash, S.; and Mukhopadhyay, S. 2021. Physics-incorporated convolutional recurrent neural networks for source identification and forecasting of dynamical systems. Neural Networks, 144: 359--371

    2021

  13. [21]

    Sanchez-Gonzalez, A.; Godwin, J.; Pfaff, T.; Ying, R.; Leskovec, J.; and Battaglia, P. 2020. Learning to simulate complex physics with graph networks. In International conference on machine learning, 8459--8468. PMLR

    2020

  14. [22]

    C.; and Dai, B

    Shao, Y.; Loy, C. C.; and Dai, B. 2022. Transformer with implicit edges for particle-based physics simulation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 549--564. Springer

    2022

  15. [23]

    Solenthaler, B.; and Pajarola, R. 2009. Predictive-corrective incompressible SPH. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2009 papers, 1--6

    2009

  16. [24]

    R.; Deschaud, J.-E.; Marcotegui, B.; Goulette, F.; and Guibas, L

    Thomas, H.; Qi, C. R.; Deschaud, J.-E.; Marcotegui, B.; Goulette, F.; and Guibas, L. J. 2019. Kpconv: Flexible and deformable convolution for point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 6411--6420

    2019

  17. [25]

    Tompson, J.; Schlachter, K.; Sprechmann, P.; and Perlin, K. 2017. Accelerating eulerian fluid simulation with convolutional networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 3424--3433. PMLR

    2017

  18. [26]

    Ummenhofer, B.; Prantl, L.; Thuerey, N.; and Koltun, V. 2019. Lagrangian fluid simulation with continuous convolutions. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  19. [27]

    Wang, S.; Suo, S.; Ma, W.-C.; Pokrovsky, A.; and Urtasun, R. 2018. Deep Parametric Continuous Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2018

  20. [28]

    E.; Bronstein, M

    Wang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Z.; Sarma, S. E.; Bronstein, M. M.; and Solomon, J. M. 2019. Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog), 38(5): 1--12

    2019

  21. [29]

    Winchenbach, R.; and Thuerey, N. 2024. Symmetric Basis Convolutions for Learning Lagrangian Fluid Mechanics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16680

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wu, S.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, B.; Zimmermann, R.; Ba, Z.; Zhang, X.; and Ren, K. 2024. Do as I Do: Pose Guided Human Motion Copy. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing

    2024

  23. [31]

    Ye, T.; Pan, D.; Huang, C.; and Liu, M. 2019. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) for complex fluid flows: Recent developments in methodology and applications. Physics of Fluids, 31(1)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Zhang, S.; Yang, X.; Wu, Z.; and Liu, H. 2015. Position-based fluid control. In Proceedings of the 19th Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, 61--68

    2015

  25. [33]

    Zheng, S.; Gao, F.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, H.; and Li, B. 2021. Topology optimization on fuel tank rib structures for fuel sloshing suppression based on hybrid fluid--solid SPH simulation. Thin-Walled Structures, 165: 107938

    2021

  26. [34]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  27. [35]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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