Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Acoustic Wave Manipulation Through Sparse Robotic Actuation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a robot can steer acoustic waves by learning a 1D wave-equation surrogate of a partially observed 2D wave field and planning sparse scatterer actions with model predictive control.

desk verdict Plausible new synthesis for acoustic wave control; suppression results are solid, but the complexity claim is unmeasured and the fixed-source evaluation leaves the generalization claim unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08784 v2 pith:K6HRF4VK submitted 2025-02-12 cs.RO cs.AI

Tristan Shah , Noam Smilovich , Feruza Amirkulova , Samer Gerges , Stas Tiomkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords acousticwavemanipulationmodelpredictivecontrollatentequationperfectlymatchedlayersparseroboticactuationpartialdifferentialequationsphysics-informedlearning
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 tries to establish that a robot with only partial sensor images of an acoustic wave field can learn to manipulate that field through sparse scatterer actuation by compressing the wave into a 1D latent wave equation. The method couples two neural encoders with numerical integration of the latent PDE and a trainable perfectly matched layer for open-space dissipation. A sympathetic reading of the experiments is that this physics-constrained surrogate predicts scattered energy more faithfully over long horizons than a neural-ODE baseline and supports model-predictive control that both focuses and suppresses energy. If true, the result matters because it offers an interpretable and computationally cheaper route to controlling PDE-governed environments, not just acoustics, without full state observability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the learned latent 1D wave equation $\partial_t z(\bar{x},t) = \mathcal{N}^{\Gamma}(z; c_\phi(\bar{x},t), l_\mu(\bar{x}), t)$, with $c_\phi$ coming from the robot encoder $D_\phi$ and $l_\mu$ from the wave encoder $W_\mu$. The wave encoder maps a sensor image to an initial condition $g_\mu(\bar{x},t_i)$ and an exogenous function $l_\mu(\bar{x})$ that encodes energy excitation and the trainable perfectly matched layer, a fitted damping sink that absorbs outgoing waves; the robot encoder maps the known robot trajectory to the latent control term $c_\phi$. The latent trajectory is produced by numerical integration, which guarantees it satisfies the chosen PDE and introduces no trainable dynamics network, and the training loss combines energy prediction error, PDE consistency, and initial-condition error. This structure is what allows model predictive control to optimize actions through the surrogate.

What would settle it

Run the trained AEM on a configuration it never saw, for example eight scatterers or a source location different from $(-10.0, 0.0)$, and compare its long-horizon predicted scattered energy against the ground-truth PDE simulation; if the prediction diverges substantially while the NODE baseline tracks better, or if the MPC actions fail to suppress or focus energy in the true environment, the central claim of a transferable 1D latent wave model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a full 2D acoustic wave field, partially observed through sensor images and controlled through sparse cylindrical scatterers, can be compressed into a 1D latent wave equation whose evolution is obtained by numerical integration rather than learned as a black box. With a trainable perfectly matched layer included as an exogenous function $l_\mu(\bar{x})$ in the latent space, this model predicts scattered energy over horizons far longer than training and serves as the dynamics model for model predictive control. In experiments, the resulting controller focuses more energy and suppresses more scattered energy than a neural-ODE baseline with equal parameter count, and its steady-state suppression matches a classical gradient-based optimization solution where one is known.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest premise is that a single 1D wave equation, whose initial conditions and exogenous source/dissipation term are read off by neural encoders, can faithfully predict the scalar energy signal of the true 2D wave field for unseen actions and long horizons; if the 1D model stops tracking the true energy, the MPC actions it recommends will not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-horizon prediction of scattered energy stays accurate far beyond the 20-step training horizon when the latent model includes a trainable perfectly matched layer.
  • MPC using the latent 1D model focuses more energy and suppresses more scattered energy than neural-ODE MPC across positional configurations with $M=1,2,4$ scatterers and the fully adjustable $M=2$ configuration.
  • Steady-state suppression matches the semi-analytical gradient-based optimization solution, including the $M=2$ full-adjustment case where both reach a suppressed energy of 0.38.
  • The method needs only sensor images and known robot dynamics, not full wave-state observability, and it avoids an extra neural network for latent dynamics by using numerical integration of the 1D wave equation.
  • The approach is presented as a proof of concept for physically realizable wave manipulation, with the same latent-wave-equation idea suggested as applicable to other PDE-governed systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test, not in the paper, is whether the trainable PML learned in one configuration transfers to a different domain size or incident frequency; the paper shows only that removing it causes divergence, not that the fitted dissipation generalizes.
  • Because the latent model is a 1D wave equation, the same architecture could in principle control other hyperbolic PDEs with a scalar energy target, such as elastic or electromagnetic wave fields; the paper claims generality but tests only acoustics.
  • The equal-parameter comparison with NODE suggests the gain comes from the wave-equation inductive bias rather than model capacity; a clean ablation would swap the latent PDE for an ODE or a different PDE family to isolate that bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 an 'Acoustic Energy Manipulation' (AEM) framework for robotic control of acoustic wave fields through sparse actuation of cylindrical scatterers. The agent observes partial wave-field images and learns a low-dimensional latent 1D wave-equation model z(x̄,t) whose dynamics are constrained to a 1D PDE with learned initial conditions, a learned exogenous term l(μ)(x̄) that includes a trainable perfectly matched layer (PML), and a learned control-dependent forcing c(φ)(x̄,t). Model predictive control (MPC) is then applied on this latent surrogate to produce piecewise-constant actions (scatterer positions/radii) for energy focusing or suppression. Experiments compare AEM against a NODE-based dynamics baseline and, for suppression, against a classical semi-analytical gradient-based optimization (GBO) solution. The paper reports that AEM outperforms NODE and random control, approximately matches GBO steady-state suppression values, and produces stable long-horizon predictions when the trainable PML is included. The authors also claim superior computational complexity relative to the learning baseline and release code and videos.

Significance. If the results hold, AEM would be a meaningful step toward interpretable, data-driven control of PDE-governed systems with sparse actuation and partial observability, and it is one of the few works to benchmark a learned controller against an independent semi-analytical acoustics solver. The paper's strengths include the use of a physics-constrained latent model rather than a black-box surrogate, evaluation of MPC actions on the ground-truth simulator rather than only on the learned model, benchmarking against the independent GBO method on suppression, equal-parameter-count comparison with NODE, and public code release. However, the generalization claims rest on experiments with a fixed source location and a limited set of configurations, and the computational-complexity claim is not substantiated. The 1D-sufficiency assumption and the role of the trainable PML as a fitted sink are the main risks to the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI.D.1, Figure 3] The long-horizon prediction result, which is central to the claim that the trainable PML enables stable predictions beyond the training horizon, is shown only for a single ring configuration and is presented as a visual curve without quantitative error metrics. Please report numerical errors (e.g., normalized RMSE or relative L2 error over the 200-step horizon) for AEM, NODE, and AEM-without-PML, and ideally for more than one configuration, so the reader can assess the magnitude of the divergence and the statistical significance of the improvement.
  2. [Section VI.A and Table I] All MPC experiments and the prediction experiment fix the acoustic source at (−10.0, 0.0). Because the trainable PML l(μ)(x̄) and the exogenous function are learned functions on the 1D domain, the demonstrated suppression and focusing results could in principle be achieved by a sink that is tuned to this particular source location and scatterer geometry rather than by a latent model that captures the underlying wave physics. To support the claimed generalization to novel configurations and real-world settings, please include at least one experiment that varies the source location or orientation (e.g., source at a different position, or the scatterer ensemble rotated relative to the source) and report whether AEM's MPC performance and prediction accuracy are maintained. Without such a test, the 1D-sufficiency assumption in Eqs. (8)–(10) remains unvalidated beyond the training distribution.
  3. [Abstract and Section VI.D.2] The abstract and Section VI.D.2 claim that AEM is 'better in terms of a solution quality and computational complexity' than the learning baseline, but no runtime measurements or complexity analysis are provided. The quality comparison is supported by Table I, but the computational-complexity claim is not. Please add wall-clock training/inference times or an asymptotic complexity comparison (e.g., number of parameters, FLOPs per MPC call, or time per MPC iteration) for AEM versus NODE.
  4. [Table I and Section VI.D.2] The comparison to GBO is only reported for the suppression task; for focusing, GBO is marked N/A. The conclusion that AEM is 'competitive with a classical semi-analytical method' should therefore be scoped to the suppression setting. Additionally, in the M=2 (F) suppression row both AEM and GBO report 0.38 ± 0.02; please clarify whether these are independent evaluations and, if so, provide a statistical test or at least state that the difference is within noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] Eq. (4) uses the notation T (ζ(x,t)) = σ(t) but does not define the domain of the operator T or the norm used in the integral; please state that the norm is the L2 norm in time and specify how the scattered energy is computed from the discretized field.
  2. [Section V.A, Eq. (6)] The wave encoder is written as Wμ : X(t) → [g(x̄,t), l(x̄)], but g appears to be an initial condition at time ti, not a function of t. Please clarify the time dependence of g and align Eq. (10) with the encoder output.
  3. [Section III.B, Eq. (2)] The policy is written as a(t) = π(ζ(x,t), d(t)), but the MPC formulation in Eq. (12) optimizes a sequence of piecewise-constant actions. Please clarify whether π outputs a single action or an entire sequence, and how this relates to the time-scale separation described in Section III.C.
  4. [Section VI.B] The three actuation modes are denoted R, P, and F, but Table I only uses P and F. Please clarify whether R appears in the long-term prediction experiment only (Figure 3) and, if so, state this explicitly.
  5. [Throughout] There are several formatting and reference issues: the DOI in reference [23] is spelled out incorrectly ('10.3390/math9 222 862'), and the caption of Figure 1 uses '¶' instead of a paragraph symbol; the wording 'PDE consistency' in Section V.A would be clearer as 'PDE residual loss.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the latent model is tested against the true environment and an independent GBO baseline.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no circular step that reduces a prediction to its inputs. The latent 1D model is trained on short-horizon energy signals (Eq. 8) and then evaluated by (i) long-horizon prediction in Figure 3, which is an extrapolation test beyond the 20-step training horizon, and (ii) MPC actions simulated in the true 2D environment, compared against the semi-analytical GBO baseline in Table I. The trainable PML l(¯x) is a fitted component, but it is not the target of the evaluation; the ablation shows sensitivity to its removal, and the question of whether the fitted dissipation generalizes to novel configurations is a stated limitation rather than a circular construction. The GBO references ([8], [23]–[25]) include current authors, but they serve as an evaluation baseline, not as justification of the latent model; the comparison is an independent check, not a derivation. There is no self-definitional equivalence, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the 1D latent wave model being a sufficient surrogate for the 2D energy signal, on the known robot dynamics, and on the GBO semi-analytical solution as ground truth. The fitted components (encoders, trainable PML, MPC weight) are the main free parameters; the latent state itself is an invented entity supported only by in-simulation evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • MPC regularization hyperparameter beta = not reported
    Controls the action magnitude penalty in Eq. (12); chosen by hand and not listed, but it shapes the closed-loop behavior reported in Table I.
  • Trainable PML and exogenous latent function l_mu(xbar) = learned neural output, no values reported
    Fitted to reproduce energy dissipation and excitation in the latent model; key to the long-horizon prediction claim in Section VI.D and Figure 3.
  • Encoder and decoder parameters theta of W_mu and D_phi = 2.7M parameters (matched to NODE)
    Standard supervised training; the model's predictions depend on these fitted weights.
  • 1D latent domain Gamma and its discretization = not reported
    The reduced spatial coordinate and numerical grid for integrating N_Gamma are design choices that determine what z can represent.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Acoustic waves in the simulated open-space domain are governed by the 2D scalar wave equation with a PML and cylindrical scatterers as time-varying boundaries.
    Assumed in Section VI.A; this is the ground-truth model for both training data and evaluation, so the method inherits its validity.
  • ad hoc to paper A 1D wave equation with forcing, learned initial conditions, and a learned dissipation term can represent the dynamics of the energy signal T(zeta) in the tested tasks.
    Central modeling assumption of Section V.A; no identifiability or approximation error analysis is provided; supported only by the empirical fit and generalization plot.
  • domain assumption The robot dynamics F for scatterer position and radius are exactly known to the agent.
    Used in Algorithm 1 step 5 and Eq. (3); in practice actuator dynamics would need identification.
  • domain assumption The semi-analytical GBO solution from multiple-scattering theory gives near-optimal steady-state suppression values.
    Used as the ground-truth comparator in Table I and Figure 4; its correctness is not verified in this paper.
  • standard math Numerical integration of the latent wave equation is stable and differentiable for backpropagation.
    Required for end-to-end training of encoders through the latent PDE in Algorithm 1; not discussed in the text.
invented entities (2)
  • 1D latent wave state z(xbar,t) and its coordinate xbar
    purpose: Serves as a low-dimensional surrogate for the true 2D wave field, used by the MPC to select scatterer positions and radii.
    The latent state is a learned construction with no direct physical mapping to the 2D domain; all evidence for its validity is in-simulation, and no external measurement or experiment is provided.
  • Trainable perfectly matched layer l_mu(xbar)
    purpose: Models dissipation in latent space, mimicking the true PML, to avoid spurious energy buildup over long horizons.
    While PML is a well-established physical technique, this specific learned implementation is fitted to the training data and has no independent evidence outside the simulated experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Acoustic Wave Manipulation Through Sparse Robotic Actuation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6HRF4VK

@misc{pith2026250208784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Acoustic Wave Manipulation Through Sparse Robotic Actuation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6HRF4VK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08784}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in robotics, control, and machine learning have facilitated progress in the challenging area of object manipulation. These advancements include, among others, the use of deep neural networks to represent dynamics that are partially observed by robot sensors, as well as effective control using sparse control signals. In this work, we explore a more general problem: the manipulation of acoustic waves, which are partially observed by a robot capable of influencing the waves through spatially sparse actuators. This problem holds great potential for the design of new artificial materials, ultrasonic cutting tools, energy harvesting, and other applications. We develop an efficient data-driven method for robot learning that is applicable to either focusing scattered acoustic energy in a designated region or suppressing it, depending on the desired task. The proposed method is better in terms of a solution quality and computational complexity as compared to a state-of-the-art learning based method for manipulation of dynamical systems governed by partial differential equations. Furthermore our proposed method is competitive with a classical semi-analytical method in acoustics research on the demonstrated tasks. We have made the project code publicly available, along with a web page featuring video demonstrations: https://gladisor.github.io/waves/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08784 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of interaction between an agent and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Encoding Scheme. Left: Sensor observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Long-term prediction of scattered energy over an episode of 0.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Challenges and outlook in robotic manipulation of deformable objects,

    J. Zhu, A. Cherubini, C. Dune, D. Navarro-Alarcon, F. Alambeigi, D. Berenson, F. Ficuciello, K. Harada, J. Kober, X. Li, J. Pan, W. Yuan, and M. Gienger, “Challenges and outlook in robotic manipulation of deformable objects,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 67–77, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Sim-to-real reinforcement learning for deformable object manipulation,

    J. Matas, S. James, and A. J. Davison, “Sim-to-real reinforcement learning for deformable object manipulation,” in Proceedings of The 2nd Conference on Robot Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Billard, A. Dragan, J. Peters, and J. Morimoto, Eds., vol. 87. PMLR, 29–31 Oct 2018, pp. 734–743. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings....

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Robotic manipulation and sensing of deformable objects in domestic and industrial applications: a survey,

    J. Sanchez, J.-A. Corrales, B.-C. Bouzgarrou, and Y . Mezouar, “Robotic manipulation and sensing of deformable objects in domestic and industrial applications: a survey,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 688–716, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364918779698

    doi:10.1177/0278364918779698 2018

  4. [4]

    Robot skills for manufacturing: From concept to industrial deployment,

    M. R. Pedersen, L. Nalpantidis, R. S. Andersen, C. Schou, S. Bøgh, V . Kr¨uger, and O. Madsen, “Robot skills for manufacturing: From concept to industrial deployment,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 37, pp. 282–291, 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736584515000575

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Advances in haptics, tactile sensing, and manipulation for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, noninvasive surgery, and diagnosis,

    A. Hamed, S. C. Tang, H. Ren, A. Squires, C. Payne, K. Masamune, G. Tang, J. Mohammadpour, and Z. T. H. Tse, “Advances in haptics, tactile sensing, and manipulation for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, noninvasive surgery, and diagnosis,” Journal of Robotics, vol. 2012, no. 1, p. 412816, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/412816 2012

  6. [6]

    Estimation of soft tissue me- chanical parameters from robotic manipulation data,

    P. Boonvisut and M. C. C ¸ avus ¸o˘glu, “Estimation of soft tissue me- chanical parameters from robotic manipulation data,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1602–1611, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    P. A. Martin, Multiple Scattering: Interaction of Time-harmonic Waves with N Obstacles. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    The gradient of total multiple scattering cross-section and its application to acoustic cloaking,

    F. A. Amirkulova and A. N. Norris, “The gradient of total multiple scattering cross-section and its application to acoustic cloaking,” Journal of Theoretical and Computational Acoustics, p. 1950016, 03 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Multiple scattering by cylinders im- mersed in fluid: High order approximations for the effective wavenum- bers,

    A. N. Norris and J.-M. Conoir, “Multiple scattering by cylinders im- mersed in fluid: High order approximations for the effective wavenum- bers,” The journal of the acoustical society of america, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 104–113, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Speed of sound in pure water,

    V . Del Grosso and C. Mader, “Speed of sound in pure water,” the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 52, no. 5B, pp. 1442–1446, 1972

    1972

  3. [11]

    Artificially engineered metacon- crete with wide bandgap for seismic surface wave manipulation,

    Z. Chen, G. Wang, and C. Lim, “Artificially engineered metacon- crete with wide bandgap for seismic surface wave manipulation,” Engineering Structures, vol. 276, p. 115375, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Longitudinal wave steering using beam-type elastic metagratings,

    S. Y . Kim, W. Lee, J. S. Lee, and Y . Y . Kim, “Longitudinal wave steering using beam-type elastic metagratings,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 156, p. 107688, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Acoustical structured illumination for super-resolution ultrasound imaging,

    T. Ilovitsh, A. Ilovitsh, J. Foiret, B. Z. Fite, and K. W. Ferrara, “Acoustical structured illumination for super-resolution ultrasound imaging,” Communications biology, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Acoustic tweezers for the life sciences,

    A. Ozcelik, J. Rufo, F. Guo, Y . Gu, P. Li, J. Lata, and T. J. Huang, “Acoustic tweezers for the life sciences,” Nature methods, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1021–1028, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Difference approxima- tions for the second order wave equation,

    H.-O. Kreiss, N. A. Petersson, and J. Ystr ¨om, “Difference approxima- tions for the second order wave equation,”SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1940–1967, 2002

    1940

  8. [16]

    R. J. LeVeque, Finite difference methods for ordinary and partial differential equations: steady-state and time-dependent problems. SIAM, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    Efficient upwind finite-difference schemes for wave equations on overset grids,

    J. B. Angel, J. W. Banks, A. M. Carson, and W. D. Henshaw, “Efficient upwind finite-difference schemes for wave equations on overset grids,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. A2703– A2724, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Cockburn, G

    B. Cockburn, G. E. Karniadakis, and C.-W. Shu, Discontinuous Galerkin methods: theory, computation and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, vol. 11

    2012

  11. [19]

    High order weno and dg methods for time-dependent convection-dominated pdes: A brief survey of several recent devel- opments,

    C.-W. Shu, “High order weno and dg methods for time-dependent convection-dominated pdes: A brief survey of several recent devel- opments,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 316, pp. 598–613, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Optimizing graded metamaterials via genetic algorithm to control energy transmission,

    J. Morris, W. Wang, T. Plaisted, C. J. Hansen, and A. V . Amirkhizi, “Optimizing graded metamaterials via genetic algorithm to control energy transmission,” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, p. 108775, sep 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Reduced order modeling and design of 3d printable mechanical metamaterials,

    W. Wang, “Reduced order modeling and design of 3d printable mechanical metamaterials,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mas- sachussets Lowell, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    On the partial difference equations of mathematical physics,

    R. Courant, K. Friedrichs, and H. Lewy, “On the partial difference equations of mathematical physics,” IBM journal of Research and Development, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 215–234, 1967

    1967

  15. [23]

    Sound localization through multi-scattering and gradient-based optimization,

    F. Amirkulova, S. Gerges, and A. Norris, “Sound localization through multi-scattering and gradient-based optimization,”Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 22, pp. 2862, 10.3390/math9 222 862, nov 2021

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Broadband acoustic lens design by reciprocity and optimization,

    F. A. Amirkulova, S. Gerges, and A. N. Norris, “Broadband acoustic lens design by reciprocity and optimization,” JASA Express Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 024005, feb 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    The gradient of absolute pressure and its application to sound localization,

    S. Gerges and F. Amirkulova, “The gradient of absolute pressure and its application to sound localization,” (In Preparation), 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Learning a model is paramount for sample efficiency in reinforcement learning control of pdes,

    S. Werner and S. Peitz, “Learning a model is paramount for sample efficiency in reinforcement learning control of pdes,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2302.07160, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:256846832

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Deep model predictive flow control with limited sensor data and online learning,

    K. Bieker, S. Peitz, S. L. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, and M. Dellnitz, “Deep model predictive flow control with limited sensor data and online learning,” Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 577–591, 03 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/...

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Learning to accelerate partial differential equations via latent global evolution,

    T. Wu, T. Maruyama, and J. Leskovec, “Learning to accelerate partial differential equations via latent global evolution,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’22. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Associates Inc., 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Neu- ral ordinary differential equations,

    R. T. Chen, Y . Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, “Neu- ral ordinary differential equations,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    A survey on neural network interpretability,

    Y . Zhang, P. Ti ˇno, A. Leonardis, and K. Tang, “A survey on neural network interpretability,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 726–742, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves,

    J.-P. Berenger, “A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves,” Journal of computational physics, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 185–200, 1994

    1994

  24. [32]

    Notes on perfectly matched layers (pmls),

    S. G. Johnson, “Notes on perfectly matched layers (pmls),” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.05348

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A general model for wildfire propagation with wind and slope,

    M. ´Angel Javaloyes, E. Pend ´as-Recondo, and M. S ´anchez, “A general model for wildfire propagation with wind and slope,” SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 414–439, 05

  26. [34]

    Climate modeling,

    S. H. Schneider and R. E. Dickinson, “Climate modeling,” Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 447–493, 1974. [Online]. Available: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1029/RG012i003p00447

    1974 doi

  27. [35]

    Analysis of epidemic spread dynamics using a pde model and covid-19 data from hamilton county oh usa,

    F. Majid, A. M. Deshpande, S. Ramakrishnan, S. Ehrlich, and M. Kumar, “Analysis of epidemic spread dynamics using a pde model and covid-19 data from hamilton county oh usa,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 20, pp. 322–327, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect....

    2021

  28. [36]

    Numerical investigation of the compressible flow past an aerofoil,

    L.-W. Chen, C.-Y . Xu, and X.-Y . Lu, “Numerical investigation of the compressible flow past an aerofoil,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 643, p. 97–126, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Physics-informed neural networks-based model predictive control for multi-link manipulators,

    J. Nicodemus, J. Kneifl, J. Fehr, and B. Unger, “Physics-informed neural networks-based model predictive control for multi-link manipulators,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 55, no. 20, pp. 331–336,

  30. [38]

    Physics-informed neural nets for control of dynamical systems,

    E. A. Antonelo, E. Camponogara, L. O. Seman, J. P. Jordanou, E. R. de Souza, and J. F. H ¨ubner, “Physics-informed neural nets for control of dynamical systems,” Neurocomputing, vol. 579, p. 127419, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019. [Online]. Ava...

    2019

  32. [40]

    A novel approach to port noise characterization using an acoustic camera,

    J. A. Bocanegra, D. Borelli, T. Gaggero, E. Rizzuto, and C. Schenone, “A novel approach to port noise characterization using an acoustic camera,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 808, p. 151903, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Fast nonlinear model predictive control of a chemical reactor: a random shooting approach,

    P. Bakar ´aˇc and M. Kvasnica, “Fast nonlinear model predictive control of a chemical reactor: a random shooting approach,” Acta Chimica Slovaca, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 175–181, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Model predictive heuristic control: Applications to industrial processes,

    J. Richalet, A. Rault, J. Testud, and J. Papon, “Model predictive heuristic control: Applications to industrial processes,” Automatica, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 413–428, 1978. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005109878900018

    1978

  35. [43]

    Model predictive control: Theory and practice,

    M. Morari, C. E. Garcia, and D. M. Prett, “Model predictive control: Theory and practice,” IFAC Proceedings V olumes, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1–12, 1988, iFAC Workshop on Model Based Process Control, Atlanta, GA, USA, 13-14 June. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com...

    1988

  36. [44]

    Acoustic cloaking theory,

    A. N. Norris, “Acoustic cloaking theory,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 464, no. 2097, pp. 2411–2434, 04 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspa.2008.0076

    2008

  37. [2022]

    Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2405896322013118

    [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2405896322013118

  38. [2023]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1137%2F22m1477866

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137%2F22m1477866

Pith tools

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