Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Physics-Informed Neural Networks for 2D Plane Wave Scattering in Arbitrary Dielectric Structures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A meshless physics-informed neural network, with Maxwell residuals and a first-order radiation condition in its loss, predicts 2D scattered fields for TM and TE polarizations, with TE accuracy restored by hyperbolic-tangent smoothing of…

desk verdict The PINN scattering formulation is plausible and the TE smoothing idea is worth knowing, but the printed boundary residual in Eq. (26) enforces the wrong radiation condition, so the reported accuracies are not reproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27349 v1 pith:3QHNCCYI submitted 2026-07-29 physics.optics physics.comp-ph

Zheng-Yu Huang , Yu Tian , Jing-Wen Zhang , Nicolae C. Panoiu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.comp-ph
keywords physics-informedneuralnetworkselectromagneticscatteringHelmholtzequationTMpolarizationTEradiationboundaryconditionhyperbolictangentsmoothingmeshlessmethods
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

This paper aims to show that a physics-informed neural network can act as a general, meshless solver for two-dimensional plane-wave scattering in arbitrary dielectric structures. The authors encode the frequency-domain Maxwell equations and a first-order radiation boundary condition directly into the network's loss, so the network learns the scattered field from the physics alone. For TM polarization, they report relative $L^2$ errors at or below roughly 0.1 for cylinders, concentric shells, and clusters of cylinders, with only slight growth as the geometry becomes more complex. For TE polarization, where the governing equation becomes singular at sharp dielectric interfaces, they introduce a hyperbolic-tangent smoothing of the permittivity jump and report that the predictions then closely match FDTD simulations. The payoff, if the claim holds, is a single training framework that handles both polarizations and irregular geometries without mesh generation or per-geometry solver redesign.

What carries the argument

The machine is the composite loss function of a fully connected network with tanh activations, $L=\lambda_{\mathrm{PDE}}L_{\mathrm{PDE}}+\lambda_{\mathrm{BC}}L_{\mathrm{BC}}$. $L_{\mathrm{PDE}}$ averages the squared residuals of the scattered-field Helmholtz equations, Eq. (17) for TM and Eq. (18) for TE; the TE operator contains the singular term $\nabla\cdot(\varepsilon_r^{-1}\nabla)$, and the right-hand sides are the equivalent sources (19)--(20). $L_{\mathrm{BC}}$ averages the squared residuals of the first-order radiation condition, written uniformly for all four edges with the sign variable $\sigma$ in Eq. (26). The $\tanh$ permittivity smoothing (31) replaces the discontinuous $\varepsilon_r$ by a continuous profile of width $\delta$, eliminating the interface singularities that otherwise stall TE training.

What would settle it

Take an exact outgoing solution, for instance the field of a line source, $u_{\mathrm{sc}}=H_0^{(1)}(k_0r)$, and evaluate the boundary residual (26) at a point on $x=x_{\min}$ and at a point on $y=y_{\min}$. If the residual is close to zero when $u_{\mathrm{sc}}=0$ but not when the radiating field is used, the boundary loss is not enforcing the stated radiation condition, and the reported errors cannot follow from the printed equations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single meshless network, trained solely on residuals of the frequency-domain Maxwell equations and a first-order radiation boundary condition, can reproduce the scattered field $u_{\mathrm{sc}}$ (with $u_{\mathrm{sc}}=E_z$ for TM and $H_z$ for TE) for dielectric geometries ranging from one cylinder to arbitrary composites. The authors derive from the Helmholtz equation a scattered-field equation whose right-hand side is an equivalent source set by the permittivity contrast, and they minimize the squared residuals of this equation together with the boundary residuals. They report that for TM, the relative $L^2$ error is typically $0.07$--$0.15$, growing only mildly with complexity; for TE, the interface singularity in $\nabla\cdot(\varepsilon_r^{-1}\nabla)$ degrades accuracy unless the permittivity jump is smoothed with a $\tanh$ profile, after which the fields closely match FDTD. The paper frames the result as a demonstration that the same training protocol and architecture remain stable and accurate across all tested scatterer configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the printed boundary formula (26) actually lets scattered waves leave the computational box; if the signs at the left and bottom edges are taken at face value, those edges force the scattered field to zero, so the reported accuracy relies on an unstated correction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the same architecture and loss recipe, TM relative $L^2$ errors remain at or below about $0.1$ across single, core-shell, three-cylinder, and irregular composite scatterers, so the method transfers across these geometries without re-meshing.
  • The hyperbolic-tangent smoothing of $\varepsilon_r$ removes the TE interface singularity, reducing errors from values above $0.9$ to close agreement with FDTD benchmarks.
  • The dynamic weighting of PDE and boundary losses, together with the dual early-stopping criterion, keeps training stable up to $5\times10^4$ iterations across all tested configurations.
  • Because the permittivity enters only as a function $\varepsilon_r(x,y)$, any new scatterer shape is handled by resampling collocation points and retraining, with no mesh regeneration step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the printed boundary residual (26) matters for reproducibility: if the signs at the left and bottom edges are taken literally, the residual vanishes when the scattered field is zero rather than when the radiating condition holds, so reimplementing from the equations may require an unstated sign correction.
  • The optimal smoothing width likely depends on geometry: the three-cylinder sweep in Fig. 5 favors $\delta\gtrsim5\times10^{-3}$, while the irregular composite is run at $\delta=10^{-3}$, so a per-geometry $\delta$ scan would settle whether TE accuracy is robust or tuned.
  • If the framework is correct, automatic differentiation gives gradients of the predicted field with respect to geometry and permittivity parameters, which could turn this forward solver into a differentiable surrogate for inverse design of dielectric scatterers.
  • A concrete next test would be to swap the first-order absorbing condition for a perfectly matched layer or higher-order radiation condition and compare $L^2$ errors; that isolates how much of the total error comes from the boundary residual versus the interior Helmholtz residual.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a meshless physics-informed neural network (PINN) framework for two-dimensional time-harmonic electromagnetic wave scattering in inhomogeneous dielectric media. The network is trained by minimizing residuals of the frequency-domain scattered-field equations together with a first-order radiation boundary condition, without using any target field data. The authors derive separate scattered-field formulations for TM (Ez) and TE (Hz) polarizations, introduce a hyperbolic-tangent smoothing of the permittivity to treat TE interface singularities, and validate the method against analytical solutions for a single cylinder, concentric core-shell cylinders, and three-cylinder configurations, and against FDTD for an irregular composite structure. Reported TM relative L2 errors are mostly below or about 0.1, while unsmoothed TE errors are large (0.20-1.09); the paper claims that permittivity smoothing restores TE accuracy, with qualitative FDTD agreement shown for the irregular case.

Significance. If the technical issues are resolved, the paper would be a useful contribution to the PINN-for-electromagnetics literature. The derivation of the scattered-field PDEs for both polarizations is clear and the TM benchmark results are encouraging. The paper commits to a strictly physics-residual-based training procedure and provides comparisons against independent analytical and FDTD benchmarks. However, the printed boundary residual in Eq. (26) contains a sign error that reverses the radiation condition on two edges, so the method as described cannot reproduce the reported accuracies. In addition, the central claim for the TE polarization rests on visual comparisons rather than quantitative error metrics, and the smoothing-width selection is benchmark-dependent. With corrected equations and quantitative TE results, the contribution would be solid; in its current form, the numerical claims are not fully verifiable from the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (26)] The boundary residual defined in Eq. (26) is inconsistent with the stated first-order radiation condition (23) on the x=x_min and y=y_min edges. With sigma=-1 and the outward normal (for example, d/dn = -d/dx at x=x_min), setting the residual to zero yields d_x u^Re = -k0 u^Im and d_x u^Im = +k0 u^Re, which is equivalent to d_x u = +i k0 u. This is the opposite of the condition (d_x + i k0)u = 0 stated in Eq. (23), which requires d_x u = -i k0 u. The same sign inversion occurs at y=y_min. As written, the loss would drive the scattered field toward an inward-propagating wave at the left and bottom edges, so the reported L2 errors against the analytical and FDTD benchmarks cannot be reproduced from the printed method. The correct implementation would use sigma=+1 on all four edges when d/dn is the outward normal (or an equivalent sign convention). The authors must correct Eq. (26) and clearly specify the residual on each edge.
  2. [Sec. IV.B and Table I] The paper's central claim for the TE polarization, namely that tanh smoothing removes the interface singularities and yields results "closely matching" the FDTD method, is not supported by any quantitative error metric. Table I reports unsmoothed TE errors of 0.9184, 0.1983, and 1.0936 for the three benchmark cases; these values are consistent with a failed fit rather than a working model. After introducing the smoothing function, the paper shows only qualitative field maps (Fig. 7) for the arbitrary-scatterer case and states that a particular delta 'minimizes epsilon_L2', but it never reports the numerical epsilon_L2 value for the smoothed TE solutions. Without this number, or equivalent values for the smoothed cylinder cases, the claimed improvement cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 5] The transition width delta is effectively selected by minimizing the relative L2 error against the benchmark solution (Fig. 5), and the text describing Fig. 7 states that delta=10^-3 was chosen as the value that minimizes epsilon_L2. This makes the subsequent FDTD comparison a form of calibration rather than a predictive test. The authors should clarify whether delta is a free parameter tuned on each benchmark case and, if so, discuss the implications for the reported error levels. Ideally, the smoothing width should be determined by a physics-based criterion (e.g., resolving the interface on a scale consistent with the discretization) or evaluated on a separate validation set not used for the final accuracy claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Figs. 4 and 7] For the TE polarization, the solved field is H_z, but the captions of Figs. 4 and 7 refer to the plotted field as "E_zr" and "E_zi" (for example, "(a) real part E_zr for E_z"). This is inconsistent with the formulation in Sec. III, where E_z is the nonzero component only in the TM case, and should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (3) and Sec. IV] The text mentions a "dynamic weighting mechanism" for lambda_PDE and lambda_BC but never specifies the update rule or the final weights. Without this information, the training procedure is not fully reproducible.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 3 caption and text] The caption of Fig. 3 lists horizontal cutlines at "y=-0.8, 0, and 0.4" (which appears to list three values), while the main text says the horizontal lines are at y=0.1, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9. The positions and number of cutlines should be made consistent.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (31)] The definition of the signed distance s is ambiguous: the text says "s>=0 (s<0) outside (inside)", which can be read as two separate conditions. The authors should state unambiguously that s>0 outside the scatterer and s<0 inside.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the field predictions are PDE-residual solutions validated against external analytical and FDTD benchmarks.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained: the PINN loss is built from the PDE residuals (Eqs. (17)-(18)) and boundary residuals (Eq. (26)) with no target-field data term, so the predicted scattered fields are obtained purely from the governing equations and boundary conditions. Comparisons are made to external analytical solutions and FDTD benchmarks that are not used as training data. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the Panoiu-authored references [6] and [12] concern T-matrix/SHG background and are not invoked to justify the method. The TE smoothing width delta is chosen by a reported parameter study (Fig. 5) and stated explicitly; this is transparent hyperparameter tuning rather than a fitted quantity that forces the field prediction, so it does not make the agreement with FDTD circular. The sign inconsistency in Eq. (26) noted in the review is a correctness/reproducibility concern, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard Maxwell and Helmholtz physics and on several numerical approximations: truncating the infinite domain with a first-order ABC, representing the solution by a neural network, and replacing sharp dielectric interfaces by a tanh-smoothed permittivity whose width is tuned against benchmarks. The only hand-tuned scientific parameter is delta; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Smoothing width delta = 10^-3 for TE Case 4; plateau near 5x10^-3
    Width of the tanh transition region that removes the TE interface singularity. Fig. 5 shows the L2 error depends strongly on delta, and Sec. IV-B states delta = 10^-3 minimizes the L2 error for the arbitrary TE case.
  • Number of collocation points = 3000 interior, 100 boundary, 50 auxiliary
    Training sample counts chosen by hand; Fig. 5 shows the TE error changes with sample count in the narrow-transition regime.
  • Dynamic loss weights lambda_PDE and lambda_BC = not specified
    The total loss in Eq. (3) is weighted dynamically, but the weighting schedule is not described. The demonstrated convergence depends on this unspecified hand-designed choice.
  • Network architecture and optimizer settings = 8 fully connected layers of 20 neurons, tanh activation, Adam lr 10^-3, 5x10^4 iterations
    Hand-chosen hyperparameters; no ablation shows the framework generalizes beyond this specific configuration.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Non-magnetic materials with mu = mu_0 and frequency-domain Maxwell equations reduce to Helmholtz equations (5) and (7).
    Used in Sec. III to derive the scattered-field equations for TM and TE polarizations.
  • domain assumption The total field is the sum of a known plane-wave incident field and a scattered field in a free-space background.
    Introduced in Sec. III, Eq. (8), and used to construct the equivalent-source residuals.
  • domain assumption The first-order ABC du/dn = i k0 u on the finite domain adequately approximates the Sommerfeld radiation condition for the tested configurations.
    The infinite-domain condition (21) is replaced by the local condition (22)-(23); no convergence study with domain size is provided.
  • domain assumption A feedforward tanh network minimized under the residual loss can approximate the true scattered field to the reported accuracy.
    PINN approximation and optimization success is assumed; no formal guarantees are provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The tanh-smoothed permittivity (31) with width delta represents the sharp-interface scatterer closely enough for validation against sharp-interface references.
    Introduced specifically to make the TE loss finite; the physical problem solved by the PINN differs from the reference problem, and delta is chosen empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Informed Neural Networks for 2D Plane Wave Scattering in Arbitrary Dielectric Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QHNCCYI

@misc{pith2026260727349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Informed Neural Networks for 2D Plane Wave Scattering in Arbitrary Dielectric Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QHNCCYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27349}
}
abstract

In this paper, we introduce a meshless physics-informed neural network based computational framework for solving two-dimensional electromagnetic wave scattering in inhomogeneous media. The framework embeds frequency-domain Maxwell equations and radiation boundary conditions directly into the neural network loss function, enabling accurate prediction of scattered fields for both transverse magnetic (TM) and transverse electric (TE) polarizations across various dielectric configurations. Application of the method to single-cylinder, concentric multilayer cylindrical shells, three arbitrarily arranged cylinders, and composite irregular structures demonstrates that for the TM polarization, all relative $L^{2}$ errors mostly remain at particularly low levels of $\le0.1$. For the TE polarization, sharp variations of the dielectric properties of scatterers lead to singularities in the governing equations, which result in decreased accuracy of the method. This challenge is overcome by introducing at dielectric boundaries a hyperbolic-tangent smoothing function. This procedure significantly improves the accuracy of the method, with the corresponding results closely matching the predictions of the finite-difference time-domain method. This framework exhibits stable convergence behavior across all of the investigated configurations, thus confirming its robustness and scalability to complex electromagnetic scattering problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27349 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the PINN-based method. The input layer, which receives the spatial coordinates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Configurations of dielectric scatterers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of PINN predictions with analytical solutions under TM polarization. (A) single cylinder; (B) core-shell concentric cylinders; (C) three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of PINN predictions with analytical solutions under TE polarization. (A) single cylinder; (B) core-shell concentric cylinders; (C) three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependence of L2 error on the width of the transition region and number of sampling points. tions. In the case of the TM polarization, the error increases only marginally with the structural complexity of the system of scatterers, underlying the robust modeling capabil…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial distribution of Ez(x, y) corresponding to the TM polarization, computed using (a) the PINN-based method and (b) the FDTD-based method. do not exist. In particular, as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial distributions of Hz(x, y) corresponding to the TE polarization, computed using (a) the PINN-based method without smoothing function, (b) the PINN-based method with smoothing function, and (c) the FDTD-based method. of the smoothing function enables the PINN to …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bi-directional ray tracing enhanced automatic forward parametric scattering model for complex coated struc- ture,

    Y . He, J. Gu, D. Ding, and M. Li, “Bi-directional ray tracing enhanced automatic forward parametric scattering model for complex coated struc- ture,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 63, pp. 1–10, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Scattering of plane waves from an interface crack between the 1D hexagonal quasicrystals coating and the elastic substrate,

    Y . Ma, Y . Zhou, J. Yang, S. Lu, X. Zhao, and S. Ding, “Scattering of plane waves from an interface crack between the 1D hexagonal quasicrystals coating and the elastic substrate,”Acta Mech., vol. 236, no. 1, pp. 289– 303, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Longitudinal plane wave amplitude in N-type semiconductors with inviscid liquid loading and impedance boundary,

    M. Biswas and S. A. Sahu, “Longitudinal plane wave amplitude in N-type semiconductors with inviscid liquid loading and impedance boundary,” Mech. Adv. Mater . Struct., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1959–1974, 2025

    work page 1959

  4. [4]

    Angular momentum resolved inelastic electron scattering for nuclear giant resonances,

    Z.-W. Lu, L. Guo, M. Ababekri, J.-L. Zhang, X.-F. Weng, Y . Wu, Y .- F. Niu, and J.-X. Li, “Angular momentum resolved inelastic electron scattering for nuclear giant resonances,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 134, no. 5, Art. no. 052501, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    An improved fast prediction method for full-space bistatic acoustic scattering of underwater vehicles,

    R. Gu, Z. Peng, Y . Xue, C. Xu, and C. Chen, “An improved fast prediction method for full-space bistatic acoustic scattering of underwater vehicles,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 8, Art. no. 2612, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Sekulic, J

    I. Sekulic, J. T. Wang, J. W. You, and N. C. Panoiu, “T-matrix method for computation of second-harmonic generation upon optical wave scattering from clusters of arbitrary particles: Application to nonlinear optical interaction of bound states in the continuum,”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 112, Art. no. 035426, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Scattering singularity in topological dielectric photonic crystals,

    L. Xiong, X. Jiang, and G. Hu, “Scattering singularity in topological dielectric photonic crystals,”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 109, no. 22, Art. no. 224111, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    The sensitivity of InSAR closure phase to spatial variations of soil structure and moisture as revealed by FDTD simulations,

    W. Gronnemose and B. T. Rabus, “The sensitivity of InSAR closure phase to spatial variations of soil structure and moisture as revealed by FDTD simulations,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 63, pp. 1–12, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Predicting microwave resonances in aqueous spheroids with a standing-wave approach,

    Y . Song, M. Hu, and A. D. Slepkov, “Predicting microwave resonances in aqueous spheroids with a standing-wave approach,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 111, no. 6, Art. no. 063522, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Solution of volume integral equation using the Edge-MB basis functions for inhomogeneous dielectric objects,

    Y . Wang, M.-D. Zhu, X.-W. Zhao, Z.-C. Lin, and Y . Zhang, “Solution of volume integral equation using the Edge-MB basis functions for inhomogeneous dielectric objects,”IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 4333–4337, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    M. I. Mishchenko,Electromagnetic Scattering by Particles and Particle Groups: An Introduction. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    T-matrix method for calculation of second-harmonic generation in clusters of spherical particles,

    I. Sekulic, J. W. You, and N. C. Panoiu, “T-matrix method for calculation of second-harmonic generation in clusters of spherical particles,”J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., vol. 268, Art. no. 107643, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    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. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,”J. Comput. Phys., vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Physics- informed neural network (PINN) evolution and beyond: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis,

    Z. K. Lawal, H. Yassin, D. T. C. Lai, and A. Che Idris, “Physics- informed neural network (PINN) evolution and beyond: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis,”Big Data Cogn. Comput., vol. 6, no. 4, Art. no. 140, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Gradient-enhanced physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE prob- lems,

    J. Yu, L. Lu, X. Meng, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Gradient-enhanced physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE prob- lems,”Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 393, Art. no. 114823, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Physics-informed neural networks for high-speed flows,

    Z. Mao, A. D. Jagtap, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks for high-speed flows,”Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 360, Art. no. 112789, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Solving the wave equation with physics-informed deep learning,

    B. Moseley, A. Markham, and T. Nissen-Meyer, “Solving the wave equation with physics-informed deep learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11894, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Solving the frequency- domain acoustic VTI wave equation using physics-informed neural net- works,

    C. Song, T. Alkhalifah, and U. B. Waheed, “Solving the frequency- domain acoustic VTI wave equation using physics-informed neural net- works,”Geophys. J. Int., vol. 225, no. 2, pp. 846–859, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    On acoustic fields of complex scatters based on physics-informed neural networks,

    H. Wang, J. Li, L. Wang, L. Liang, Z. Zeng, and Y . Liu, “On acoustic fields of complex scatters based on physics-informed neural networks,” Ultrasonics, vol. 128, Art. no. 106872, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Multiple scattering simulation via physics-informed neural networks,

    S. Nair, T. F. Walsh, G. Pickrell, and F. Semperlotti, “Multiple scattering simulation via physics-informed neural networks,”Eng. Comput., vol. 41, pp. 31–50, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Physics-informed neural networks for inverse problems in nano-optics and metamaterials,

    Y . Chen, L. Lu, G. E. Karniadakis, and L. Dal Negro, “Physics-informed neural networks for inverse problems in nano-optics and metamaterials,” Opt. Express, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 11618–11633, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Physics-informed neural networks for imaging and parameter retrieval of photonic nanostructures from near- field data,

    Y . Chen and L. Dal Negro, “Physics-informed neural networks for imaging and parameter retrieval of photonic nanostructures from near- field data,”APL Photon., vol. 7, no. 1, Art. no. 010802, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Physics-informed neural networks for diffraction tomography,

    A. Saba, C. Gigli, A. B. Ayoub, and D. Psaltis, “Physics-informed neural networks for diffraction tomography,”Adv. Photon., vol. 4, no. 6, Art. no. 066001, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Physics-informed deep learning for 3D modeling of light diffraction from optical metasurfaces,

    V . Medvedev, A. Erdmann, and A. Rosskopf, “Physics-informed deep learning for 3D modeling of light diffraction from optical metasurfaces,” Opt. Express, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1371–1384, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Hybrid physics- data-driven neural network for accurate modeling of scattering problems,

    X. Zheng, T. J. Peng, J. Hou, Y . Zhang, L. Chen, S. L. Qin, Y . Q. Mao, W. B. Lu, J. N. Zhang, J. W. You, and T. J. Cui, “Hybrid physics- data-driven neural network for accurate modeling of scattering problems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 6826–6838, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Neural network realizations of wideband near-field communication systems: An electromagnetic design approach,

    J. Hu, G. H. Thng, and S. Mikki, “Neural network realizations of wideband near-field communication systems: An electromagnetic design approach,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9501–9516, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Self-scalable tanh (stan): Faster convergence and better generalization in physics- informed neural networks,

    R. Gnanasambandam, B. Shen, J. Chung, X. Yue, et al., “Self-scalable tanh (stan): Faster convergence and better generalization in physics- informed neural networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.12589, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next,

    S. Cuomo, V . Schiano Di Cola, F. Giampaolo, G. Rozza, M. Raissi, and F. Piccialli, “Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next,”J. Sci. Comput., vol. 92, no. 3, Art. no. 88, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    A novel 3-D hybrid approach for simulating electromagnetic scattering from electrically large targets in ducting maritime environments,

    H. Yu, C. Liao, J. Feng, Y . Shang, and Q. Ouyang, “A novel 3-D hybrid approach for simulating electromagnetic scattering from electrically large targets in ducting maritime environments,”IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 4528–4532, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.