Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A neural operator can learn hyperelastic deformations on variable geometries without any precomputed reference solutions, by training on squared φ-FEM weak-form residuals instead of paired data.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 13:13 UTC pith:UWQPRX76

load-bearing objection WINO is a credible label-free weak-form neural operator for hyperelasticity; the residual-sufficiency gap and partly circular validation are real but fixable. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2605.24651 v2 pith:UWQPRX76 submitted 2026-05-23 math.NA cs.LGcs.NA

WINO: A Weak-Form Physics Informed Neural Operator for Hyperelasticity on Variable Domains

Bokai Zhu , Yizheng Wang , Qinghui Zhang , Timon Rabczuk This is my paper
classification math.NA cs.LGcs.NA MSC 65M6065N3068T0774B20
keywords hyperelasticityneural operatorweak formphysics-informedlevel-set methodunfitted finite elementlabel-free trainingneural operator warm start
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that a Fourier neural operator can be trained label-free for families of large-deformation hyperelasticity problems on changing domains, using only the squared weak-form residual of the φ-FEM discretization plus auxiliary cut-cell penalties. Across five benchmarks, WINO achieves relative L2 errors between 0.65% and 3.97%, while total training cost is about 15%–70% of a supervised Fourier neural operator because no reference-solution generation is needed. The same predictions can also warm-start Newton/GMRES solvers, cutting iteration counts and wall-clock time substantially. A sympathetic reader would care because this points toward accurate operator learning for nonlinear mechanics without expensive solver-generated datasets.

Core claim

WINO establishes that the φ-FEM weak formulation itself can act as the training signal for a neural operator on variable domains. For pure Dirichlet problems, the network learns only the homogeneous lift component w_h in u_h = φ_h w_h + g_h, so boundary conditions are built into the ansatz. For traction-driven Neumann problems, the same backbone predicts the displacement together with the auxiliary fields y_h and p_h that close the unfitted weak form. Training minimizes squared nodal weak-form residuals and squared residuals of the auxiliary equations, evaluated by Gaussian quadrature on a fixed Cartesian background mesh. The resulting operator reaches relative L2 errors below 4% on all repo

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the squared residual of the φ-FEM weak form, evaluated element-wise on the unchanged background mesh using Q4 and Q9 test functions. φ-FEM represents the domain implicitly through a level-set function on a Cartesian grid, avoiding body-fitted meshes and trimmed-element quadrature; the weak form handles nonsymmetric and non-energy settings where an energy-based loss would not apply. The Fourier neural operator maps input fields (level set, loads, boundary data) to either the homogeneous displacement or the displacement plus auxiliary cut-cell fields, and the loss is assembled with standard finite-element quadrature so no additional numerical differentiation in ph

Load-bearing premise

The squared weak-form residual evaluated on the background mesh, without ghost-penalty stabilization, is assumed to be a sufficient training signal: driving that loss near zero is assumed to produce the correct hyperelastic displacement rather than a spurious zero-residual mode.

What would settle it

Construct a specific load and geometry family where the φ-FEM weak form admits nontrivial zero-residual modes (for example, a cut-cell configuration with insufficient stabilization), train WINO without labels on that family, and check whether the predicted displacement matches a reference solution; if the loss is near zero but the error is large, the sufficiency assumption fails.

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

If this is right

  • Hyperelastic operator learning no longer requires large paired datasets of converged finite-element solutions, removing the dominant data-generation bottleneck.
  • Training on a fixed Cartesian background means a single WINO model can handle many geometries within one parametric family without remeshing.
  • WINO predictions provide neural-operator warm starts that reduce Newton and GMRES iteration counts, e.g., cutting nonlinear solve wall-clock time from 2.44 s to 0.47 s in the elliptical benchmark while preserving the exactness of the final finite-element solve.
  • The same WINO model shows stability when evaluated on finer meshes than it was trained on, whereas a purely supervised Fourier neural operator degrades more noticeably in H1 error under such cross-resolution transfer.
  • When labeled data are available, augmenting the physics loss with a supervised term further improves accuracy, giving a smooth interpolation between label-free and fully supervised regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the method needs no energy functional, the same squared-weak-residual recipe could be transferred to other unfitted or non-variational discretizations, such as Petrov–Galerkin or stabilized cut-cell methods.
  • Editorial inference: the warm-start capability suggests WINO could be embedded in optimization or inverse-design loops where many nearby loading/geometry queries must be solved repeatedly, since a 5 ms forward pass replaces several Newton iterations.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension would be to train WINO at coarse resolution and evaluate on progressively finer meshes to see whether the observed resolution invariance holds beyond the tested 51-to-256 grid range, which would strengthen the claim of mesh-independent operator learning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes WINO, a weak-form physics-informed neural operator for parametric hyperelasticity on domains represented by level-set functions on a fixed Cartesian background mesh. The network is built on an FNO backbone and trained by minimizing squared φ-FEM weak-form residuals, optionally augmented by strong-form penalties for cut-cell auxiliary variables in the Neumann branch; Dirichlet conditions are imposed through the φ-FEM lift. The authors claim that this removes the need for paired reference solutions, while retaining accuracy and geometric flexibility. Five benchmark families are reported (elliptical shapes, random shapes, plate with a hole, Cook's membrane, pressure vessel), with relative L2 errors between 0.65% and 3.97%, total training times 15–70% of those of supervised FNO, and acceleration of Newton/GMRES solvers through neural-operator warm starts (NOWS).

Significance. If the central claim is valid, WINO is a useful step toward label-free operator learning for nonlinear solid mechanics on varying geometries: it avoids body-fitted remeshing, uses a weak form that aligns with finite-element practice, and produces warm starts that accelerate existing solvers. The manuscript is strong on reproducibility and breadth: code and data are publicly available, experiments include multiple error metrics, out-of-distribution tests, mesh-resolution studies, and a body-fitted convergence check for the pressure vessel. However, the core label-free assertion rests on an unproved premise — that driving the squared weak residual (2.40)/(2.42) to small values selects the physical displacement rather than a spurious zero-residual mode — and the validation partly measures self-consistency with the same φ-FEM discretization family. These issues are load-bearing and require additional analysis or targeted numerical evidence before the main claim is established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4.2, Eqs. (2.40), (2.42); Remark 2.4] The label-free training claim rests on the squared weak residual being a sufficient training signal. Minimizing (2.40)/(2.42) only enforces a Galerkin statement against the chosen Q4/Q9 test functions; for a nonlinear hyperelastic problem with possible multiple equilibria this does not, by itself, guarantee convergence to the physical solution. Remark 2.4 explicitly drops the ghost-penalty stabilization used in the φ-FEM formulation (2.13)/(2.19), and the Neumann loss replaces the coupled system by strong-form penalties (2.38)–(2.39). No null-space check, coercivity/inf-sup argument, or branch-selection experiment is provided. I request either a theoretical justification or numerical evidence — e.g., residual Jacobian rank/conditioning on the test space, training from several initializations, or verification that near-zero loss implies agreement with an independent body-fitted reference
  2. [§3, Tables 2 and 6; Fig. 18d] Validation is partly circular: the reference solutions are produced by the same φ-FEM formulation whose residual WINO minimizes, on the same background mesh family. Only the pressure-vessel benchmark compares φ-FEM against a body-fitted FEM reference (Fig. 18d). For the other four benchmarks, a φ-FEM-consistent but physically wrong mode would not be detected by the reported errors. At least one benchmark should be re-validated against an independent body-fitted or differently discretized reference, or a subset of WINO predictions should be compared directly to body-fitted FEM solutions.
  3. [§3.2.1–3.2.3, Eq. (2.39); Conclusion] The auxiliary penalty weights λ1, λ2, λ3 are hand-tuned per benchmark and vary by orders of magnitude: plate with a hole uses 10−6, 10−7; Cook's membrane uses 10−7, 10−2, 1; the pressure vessel uses 10−2, 10−3. The Conclusion concedes that training is sensitive to these parameters. Because Lsq is an integral part of the label-free loss (2.40), this tuning burden weakens the practical claim that WINO avoids expensive labeled data. Please provide a systematic selection rule, a sensitivity study, or an adaptive strategy for these weights.
  4. [§3.1.2, Table 1] The reported training hyperparameters are internally inconsistent: the text states that the random-shape model is trained with a learning rate of 0.05, while Table 1 lists 0.005. This needs correction. In addition, the cost comparisons would be more informative if they separated data-generation time from training time; in Table 6, WINO's training time (19,242 s) is actually larger than FNO's training time (12,757 s), and the total-time advantage comes solely from saved data generation. The abstract's phrasing 'total training times of about 15%–70%' should be made consistent with the later phrasing 'total computational time by 50–80%', and the distinction between training time and total cost should be stated unambiguously.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] There are typographical issues throughout: 'operater', 'efficiency', 'more simpler', 'A veraged'. The abstract's two percentage claims ('15%–70%' vs '50–80%') should be reconciled.
  2. [Table 2] The 'data generation + training time' format is unclear for WINO entries such as '0.3 + 1248.8 s': what does 0.3 s represent? Clarify the columns and units.
  3. [§3.1.2, Eq. (3.9)–(3.10)] The definition of φ from φg is ambiguous: the term max_{Ω} φg depends on the continuous domain and should be stated more precisely, e.g., as a nodal maximum on the background mesh.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (2.14)] The notation ⟦·⟧ for the jump is defined only in the text after Eq. (2.20); please define it at first use in Eq. (2.14).
  5. [§3.2.2 and §3.2.3] For the Cook's membrane and pressure vessel benchmarks, the text mentions that GMRES did not converge and LU was used; the NOWS comparisons are not reported for these cases. State explicitly that the warm-start benefit was not demonstrated for these more strongly nonlinear benchmarks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: WINO's residual-based loss is not fitted to reference outputs, and validation includes an external body-fitted FEM convergence check.

full rationale

WINO's central training objective is Ltotal = Lweak + Lsq (Eqs. 2.36–2.40), a squared residual of the φ-FEM weak form and the cut-cell auxiliary constraints. This is the intended definition of a physics-informed solver, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs: the loss is evaluated on level-set fields and loads, not on the reference displacement, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a predicted output. Reported errors are measured against φ-FEM reference solutions, and in the pressure-vessel case the φ-FEM reference is itself validated against a body-fitted FEM solution with convergence shown in Fig. 18d, providing external support. The self-citations ([14] for Q9 shape functions, [16]/[17] for NOWS) supply implementation details and a general warm-start strategy; neither is load-bearing for the label-free claim. The hand-tuned penalty parameters and the absence of a null-space/uniqueness analysis are correctness risks, not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the predicted field, and no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim loads on the φ-FEM weak form imported from prior work; the assumption that residual minimization on a coarse test space has no spurious minima; hand-tuned loss penalties; and distributional coverage by random sampling. The paper adds no new physical entity, but the losses contain several hand-chosen constants and the sufficiency of weak-residual training for nonlinear hyperelasticity is unproven.

free parameters (3)
  • penalty weights λ1, λ2, λ3 = Per benchmark: plate 1e-6/1e-7/1e-6; Cook 1e-7/1e-2/1; pressure vessel 1e-2/1e-3/1e-2
    Hand-selected to balance the weak-form residual and auxiliary residuals; no sensitivity or ablation study is reported, but they affect convergence and final accuracy.
  • FNO architecture and optimizer hyperparameters = 16 Fourier modes, 4 layers, width 32, batch size 50, per-case learning rate/decay/patience
    Chosen by hand following standard FNO practice; they are not fitted to reference solutions but influence the claimed performance.
  • φ-FEM stabilization and reference-solver parameters = Not fully reported (σ_D, σ_N; some Newton/GMRES tolerances are given)
    The high-fidelity reference solutions used as ground truth depend on unstated stabilization parameters, making independent replication harder.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The φ-FEM weak formulations (2.13) and (2.19) are stable and coercive for the benchmark geometries and chosen stabilization parameters.
    Imported from Duprez–Lozinski references; not re-proven for nonlinear hyperelasticity; WINO residuals inherit this.
  • ad hoc to paper A network that drives the squared weak residual (2.40)/(2.42) to small values yields the physically correct displacement, i.e., the residual has no spurious near-null modes on the finite test space.
    This sufficiency is assumed; no coercivity, uniqueness, or approximation argument is given for the PDE-to-network map.
  • ad hoc to paper Ghost-penalty stabilization can be omitted from the WINO loss because neural fields are smooth on the background mesh.
    Remark 2.4 states this; it is a modeling choice not proven for cut cells.
  • standard math Q4/Q9 interpolation of network nodal outputs is accurate enough for residual quadrature on active and cut cells.
    Standard isoparametric FEM interpolation used in Eqs. (2.33)–(2.34).
  • domain assumption Random sampling of level sets, loads, and body forces defines a distribution covering the test and OOD cases.
    No formal generalization guarantee is given; OOD robustness is tested with only a handful of realizations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25872 in / 15038 out tokens · 156210 ms · 2026-08-02T13:13:01.621286+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a Weak-form Physics-Informed Neural Operator (WINO), a data-free framework that combines the efficiency of neural operators with the geometric flexibility of the $\varphi$-finite element method ($\varphi$-FEM). $\varphi$-FEM is an unfitted method that accommodates geometric variations without body-fitted meshes, where the domain geometry is represented by the level-set function $\varphi$. To impose the boundary conditions, Dirichlet problems adopt the $\varphi$-FEM lifting so only the homogeneous displacement contribution is learned, whereas traction-driven Neumann problems additionally predict the auxiliary fields necessary for the unfitted weak formulation. Parameters are trained by minimizing squared weak-form residuals aligned with $\varphi$-FEM together with squared penalties on the cut-cell auxiliary equations, which removes the need for large paired datasets of converged reference solutions. When labeled reference data are available, an optional data-augmented variant (WINO+data) can further combine this physics-informed loss with a supervised term. After training, WINO outputs can seed the nonlinear $\varphi$-FEM solvers as neural operator warm starts (NOWS), which reduce iteration counts relative to traditional cold-started solvers. Numerical benchmarks show substantial accuracy of WINO together with total training times of about 15%-70% of those of supervised $\varphi$-FEM-FNO across all cases, without requiring reference-solution generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24651 by Bokai Zhu, Qinghui Zhang, Timon Rabczuk, Yizheng Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The deformation mapping χ under the load tN . where C = F T F is the right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor, and J = det(F) is the Jacobian deter￾minant of the deformation gradient, representing the local volume ratio of the material before and after deformation. µ and λ are the Lamé parameters that characterize the intrinsic mechanical properties of the material. In this paper, we only formulate the hypere… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: φ-FEM meshes and facet sets for an elliptic domain: the exact boundary Γ (purple); facets belonging to Γ G h (green); facets on ∂Ωh (red); active interior cells Th \ T Γ h (blue); cut cells T Γ h (red fill); Cartesian background mesh T O h (overall grid). Additionally, we define Γ G h := ∂Ω Γ h \ ∂Ωh as the facets between the Th \ T Γ h and the T Γ h . To better understand φ-FEM, we illustrate the meshes a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The architecture of the Fourier neural operator for Dirichlet boundary conditions and Neumann boundary conditions. mesh. In the Neumann setting, we denote D (m) input := (φ (m) h , t (m) h ,f (m) h ). We assume a set of paired samples is given by Ddata = {(D (m) input; u ref,(m) h )} Ns m=1. (2.27) In this supervised setting, we denote the corresponding data-driven neural operator by G data θ , which predi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic flowchart of WINO training: inputs without labeled data, FNO prediction on nodes, calculation of loss (weak form based residuals), and summation of loss over the Cartesian background mesh. the Gaussian quadrature points of each element from the shape-function gradients and the isoparametric map (2.34), so the weak and squared residuals do not rely on additional numerical differentiation of the ne… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Elliptical shape benchmark. (a) Evolution of the mean relative L 2 errors during training; (b) Relative errors after training; (c) Representative test sample, from left to right: input function fh gh, exact displacement, WINO prediction, and absolute error contour. the outer Newton residual histories, the total number of Newton iterations across all incremental loading steps, and box plots of the total GMR… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: NOWS comparison for the elliptical shape case. (a) Outer Newton residual and total Newton iterations for classical φ-FEM (4 load increments) and NOWS. (b) Box plots of total GMRES iteration counts for all load increments. 3.1.2 Random shape In this part, we consider the hyperelastic problem (3.4) on the random shape domain. The level-set function φ is constructed from a sum of three Gaussian functions, φ(x… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Random shape benchmark. (a) Five test samples of the level-set functions and corresponding geometries; (b) Evolution of the mean relative L 2 errors during training; (c) Relative errors after training; (d) Box plots of the relative L 2 errors for WINO with different mesh sizes (from 16 × 16 to 128 × 128) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: WINO performance for the random shape case: (a) In-distribution test sample; (b) Out-of￾distribution test sample. From left to right: input functions gh, fh, exact displacement field, WINO prediction, and absolute error contour. 16 × 16 to 128 × 128 (Fig. 7d). For the 16 × 16 and 32 × 32 settings, the retained Fourier modes in FNO are set to 6 and 12, respectively. Even on the coarsest 16 × 16 mesh, most s… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NOWS comparison for the random shape case. (a) Outer Newton residual and total Newton iterations for classical φ-FEM (4 load increments) and NOWS. (b) Box plots of total GMRES iteration counts for all load increments. s = 0.1 and l = 0.5. The prediction and absolute error are shown in Fig. 8b. Under this OOD setting, errors are moderately larger than in-distribution errors, while the predicted displacement… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The geometry and mesh tags for the plate with a hole case. 3.2.1 Plate with a hole In this subsection, we consider the hyperelastic problem on a square plate with an elliptic hole, which is formulated as −∇ · P(F(u)) = 0, in Ω, u = 0, on ΓD, P(F(u)) · n = tN , on ΓT , P(F(u)) · n = 0, on ΓN , (3.14) where the background domain is the square O = [0, 1]2 , and the physical domain Ω ⊂ O is a square plate wit… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The evolution of the mean relative L 2 errors during training progress (left) and the relative errors after training is displayed in the box plot (right) for the plate with a hole case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Representative test sample for the plate with a hole case. (a) Input boundary condition tN and WINO-predicted deformed configuration; (b) x- and y-displacement components for the exact solutions (top row), WINO predictions (middle row), and pointwise absolute error contours (bottom row). tractions. As a result, we interrogate the trained operator by evaluating WINO on a monotonically increasing sequence o… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: WINO generalization for the plate with a hole case. (a) WINO-predicted displacement fields for increasing nominal traction levels ty ∈ {15, 25, 35, 45}; (b) Out-of-distribution test: exact solution (left), WINO prediction (middle), and absolute error contour (right). accuracy gains. Inference cost is similar for all three models (about 5 ms per forward pass in our setup), reflecting the fact that they sha… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: NOWS comparison for the plate with a hole case. (a) Outer Newton residual history for φ-FEM and NOWS. (b) Box plots of the total GMRES iteration counts. system, which is solved by restarted GMRES (restart m = 80, relative tolerance rtol = 10−5 ) in every Newton iteration in this case. In practice, the 64 × 64 discrete fields returned by WINO, including the displacement uh, the auxiliary variables yh and p… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cook’s membrane case. (a) Geometry of the Cook’s membrane. (b) Evolution of the mean relative L 2 error during training. (c) Box plot of relative errors after training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Representative test sample for the Cook’s membrane case. (a) WINO-predicted deformed configuration; (b) x- and y-displacement components for the exact solutions (top row), WINO predictions (middle row), and pointwise absolute error contours (bottom row). Q9 elements on quadrilateral meshes). Owing to strong nonlinearity in this membrane benchmark, the Newton linearizations are solved with sparse LU factor… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: WINO predicted displacement fields for increasing traction levels ty = {5, 10, 15}. Remark 3.3 Since this benchmark involves mixed Dirichlet and Neumann conditions, the loaded right edge is taken as the vertical segment at x = 4 between (4, 1.4) and (4, 2), while the two slanted sides are encoded by the level-set product (3.18). We use a uniform 51×51 Cartesian background on O = [0, 4]×[0, 2] and fix the … view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Pressure vessel case. (a) Geometry of the pressure vessel. (b) Evolution of the mean relative L 2 error during training. (c) Box plot of relative errors after training. (d) convergence of φ-FEM: relative L 2 , H1 seminorm, and energy-norm errors versus mesh size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Representative test sample for the pressure vessel case. (a) WINO-predicted deformed con￾figuration; (b) x- and y-displacement components for the exact solutions (top row), WINO predictions (middle row), and pointwise absolute error contours (bottom row). Here NQ9 is the Q9 shape-function matrix. Accordingly, the network inputs and outputs are represented on a 101 × 101 grid, while the loss is computed on… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Data-free neural PDE solvers based on Graph Neural Networks and weak forms

    cs.CE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A graph-neural-network PDE solver trained on the weak-form force residual — no simulation data — reports residual convergence below 1% on unseen load cases and one modified geometry, with residual-based test-time refinement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nonlinear solid mechanics: a continuum approach for engineering science,

    G. A. Holzapfel, “Nonlinear solid mechanics: a continuum approach for engineering science,” 2002

    2002

  2. [2]

    Topics in finite elasticity: hyperelasticity of rubber, elastomers, and biological tissues— with examples,

    M. F. Beatty, “Topics in finite elasticity: hyperelasticity of rubber, elastomers, and biological tissues— with examples,” 1987

    1987

  3. [3]

    O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor, P. Nithiarasu, and J. Zhu, The finite element method . Elsevier, 1977, vol. 3

    1977

  4. [4]

    An introduction to the finite element method,

    J. N. Reddy, “An introduction to the finite element method,” in Dynamics of Earth’s Fluid System . CRC Press, 2026, pp. 199–226

    2026

  5. [5]

    Finite element implementation of incompressible, transversely isotropic hyperelasticity,

    J. A. Weiss, B. N. Maker, and S. Govindjee, “Finite element implementation of incompressible, transversely isotropic hyperelasticity,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 135, no. 1-2, pp. 107–128, 1996

    1996

  6. [6]

    J. W. Thomas, Numerical partial differential equations: finite difference methods . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013, vol. 22

    2013

  7. [7]

    Deeponet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,

    L. Lu, P. Jin, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Deeponet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03193, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  8. [8]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,

    L. Lu, P. Jin, G. Pang, Z. Zhang, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,” Nature machine intelligence , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 218–229, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations,

    Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anand- kumar, “Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Synergistic learning with multi-task deeponet for efficient pde problem solving,

    V. Kumar, S. Goswami, K. Kontolati, M. D. Shields, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Synergistic learning with multi-task deeponet for efficient pde problem solving,” Neural Networks , vol. 184, p. 107113, 2025. 37

    2025

  11. [11]

    Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations,

    Z. Li, H. Zheng, N. Kovachki, D. Jin, H. Chen, B. Liu, K. Azizzadenesheli, and A. Anandkumar, “Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations,” ACM/IMS Journal of Data Science , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–27, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Learning the solution operator of parametric partial dif- ferential equations with physics-informed deeponets,

    S. Wang, H. Wang, and P. Perdikaris, “Learning the solution operator of parametric partial dif- ferential equations with physics-informed deeponets,” Science advances, vol. 7, no. 40, p. eabi8605, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Physics-informed machine learning in biomedical science and engineering,

    N. Ahmadi, Q. Cao, J. D. Humphrey, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed machine learning in biomedical science and engineering,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 309–336, 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

    Variational physics-informed neural operator (vino) for solving partial differential equations,

    M. S. Eshaghi, C. Anitescu, M. Thombre, Y. Wang, X. Zhuang, and T. Rabczuk, “Variational physics-informed neural operator (vino) for solving partial differential equations,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 437, p. 117785, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Finite element operator network for solving parametric pdes,

    J. Y. Lee, S. Ko, and Y. Hong, “Finite element operator network for solving parametric pdes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04690 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Nows: Neural operator warm starts for accelerating iterative solvers,

    M. S. Eshaghi, C. Anitescu, N. Valizadeh, Y. Wang, X. Zhuang, and T. Rabczuk, “Nows: Neural operator warm starts for accelerating iterative solvers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02481 , 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Pretrain finite element method: A pretraining and warm-start framework for pdes via physics-informed neural operators,

    Y. Wang, Z. Hao, M. S. Eshaghi, C. Anitescu, X. Zhuang, T. Rabczuk, and Y. Liu, “Pretrain finite element method: A pretraining and warm-start framework for pdes via physics-informed neural operators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03086 , 2026

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Level set methods: an overview and some recent results,

    S. Osher and R. P. Fedkiw, “Level set methods: an overview and some recent results,” Journal of Computational physics , vol. 169, no. 2, pp. 463–502, 2001

    2001

  19. [19]

    Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces,

    S. Osher, R. Fedkiw, and K. Piechor, “Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces,” Appl. Mech. Rev., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. B15–B15, 2004

    2004

  20. [20]

    ϕ-fem: a finite element method on domains defined by level-sets,

    M. Duprez and A. Lozinski, “ ϕ-fem: a finite element method on domains defined by level-sets,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 1008–1028, 2020

    2020

  21. [21]

    φ-fem, a finite element method on domains defined by level-sets: the neumann boundary case,

    M. Duprez, V. Lleras, and A. Lozinski, “ φ-fem, a finite element method on domains defined by level-sets: the neumann boundary case,” 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    φ-fem-fno: a new approach to train a neural operator as a fast pde solver for variable geometries,

    M. Duprez, V. Lleras, A. Lozinski, V. Vigon, and K. Vuillemot, “ φ-fem-fno: a new approach to train a neural operator as a fast pde solver for variable geometries,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , p. 109131, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Cut finite element methods,

    E. Burman, P. Hansbo, M. G. Larson, and S. Zahedi, “Cut finite element methods,” Acta Numerica, vol. 34, pp. 1–121, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Bonet and R

    J. Bonet and R. D. Wood, Nonlinear continuum mechanics for finite element analysis . Cambridge university press, 1997

    1997

  25. [25]

    C. T. Kelley, Solving nonlinear equations with Newton ’s method . SIAM, 2003

    2003

  26. [26]

    Nitsol: A newton iterative solver for nonlinear systems,

    M. Pernice and H. F. Walker, “Nitsol: A newton iterative solver for nonlinear systems,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 302–318, 1998. 38

    1998

  27. [27]

    Function minimization by conjugate gradients,

    R. Fletcher and C. M. Reeves, “Function minimization by conjugate gradients,” The computer journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 149–154, 1964

    1964

  28. [28]

    A survey of nonlinear conjugate gradient methods,

    W. W. Hager and H. Zhang, “A survey of nonlinear conjugate gradient methods,” Pacific journal of Optimization, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 35–58, 2006

    2006

  29. [29]

    Gmres: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving non- symmetric linear systems,

    Y. Saad and M. H. Schultz, “Gmres: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving non- symmetric linear systems,” SIAM Journal on scientific and statistical computing , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 856–869, 1986

    1986

  30. [30]

    Gmres with deflated restarting,

    R. B. Morgan, “Gmres with deflated restarting,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 20–37, 2002

    2002

  31. [31]

    Petsc users manual,

    S. Balay, S. Abhyankar, M. Adams, J. Brown, P. Brune, K. Buschelman, L. Dalcin, A. Dener, V. Eijkhout, W. Gropp et al. , “Petsc users manual,” 2019

    2019

  32. [32]

    Soap: Improving and stabilizing shampoo using adam,

    N. Vyas, D. Morwani, R. Zhao, M. Kwun, I. Shapira, D. Brandfonbrener, L. Janson, and S. Kakade, “Soap: Improving and stabilizing shampoo using adam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11321 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Gaussian processes in machine learning,

    C. E. Rasmussen, “Gaussian processes in machine learning,” in Summer school on machine learning . Springer, 2003, pp. 63–71

    2003

  34. [34]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix computations . JHU press, 2013. 39

    2013