Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Monotone Peridynamic Neural Operator for Nonlinear Material Modeling with Conditionally Unique Solutions

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A learned material law can be made well-posed by forcing its bond force to come from a convex energy, so that in small deformations any two solutions differ only by rigid motion.

desk verdict Solid architecture and strong experiments, but the uniqueness guarantee is proved only for a linearized proxy, not for the nonlinear operator actually trained and solved. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01060 v1 pith:HC4ADBO7 submitted 2025-05-02 cs.LG cs.NAmath.NA

Jihong Wang , Xiaochuan Tian , Zhongqiang Zhang , Stewart Silling , Siavash Jafarzadeh , Yue Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.NAmath.NA MSC 68Q2568R1068U05
keywords neuraloperatorsperidynamicsdata-drivenconstitutivemodelingsolutionuniquenessconvexenergymonotonegradientnetworknonlocalmodelsmoleculardynamicshomogenization
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 claims that a learned constitutive model for nonlinear materials can be made well-posed by design: in the small-deformation regime, the model's predicted displacement field is unique up to rigid motions, rather than branching into non-physical solutions. The mechanism is to represent the bond-force law as the derivative of a convex energy, enforced by using a monotone-gradient neural network for the stretch dependence. A uniqueness theorem shows that strict convexity of the micropotential in the bond stretch rules out distinct minimizers, and the architecture is chosen to satisfy that hypothesis automatically. On synthetic data the learned law converges to the manufactured ground truth as the measurement grid refines, and on molecular-dynamics data the model transfers to a new geometry and new loadings. This matters because unconstrained neural constitutive laws often produce divergent or nonphysical downstream simulations, and the paper offers a path to data-driven material models with a well-posedness guarantee analogous to classical elasticity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cascaded monotone gradient network (mGradNet-C), specified in Eq. (3.5): a layered network with nonnegative scaling weights $\alpha_l, \beta_l$, a weight matrix $W$ shared across all layers, and increasing activation functions, designed so that its output is the gradient of a convex potential. MPNO uses this network for $g(\lambda)$ in the separable bond force $g(\lambda)k(\xi)(\xi+\eta)/|\xi+\eta|$, while a separate multilayer perceptron with a ReLU output learns the nonnegative kernel $k(\xi)$. An increasing $g$ makes the micropotential $w(\lambda,\xi)$ convex in the bond stretch $\lambda$, which by the paper's Theorem 3.2 makes the total energy strictly convex up to rigid displacements and thereby guarantees solution uniqueness in the small-deformation regime. The same network also supports the two-phase solver, because the unique small-deformation solution can be computed first and then refined for the full nonlinear model.

What would settle it

Take any instance of the mGradNet-C architecture, random or trained, with nonnegative $\alpha_l,\beta_l$ and arbitrary shared weights and biases, and evaluate $g_{\text{NN}}(\lambda)$ on a fine grid spanning the observed stretch range. If any increment shows the output decreasing as $\lambda$ increases, or equivalently if $\partial g_{\text{NN}}/\partial\lambda$ is negative anywhere, the claimed monotonicity of the architecture fails and the convexity and uniqueness guarantee cannot be invoked for that model. A corresponding physical check would be to solve the small-deformation model and exhibit two non-equivalent displacement fields with the same boundary data and loading.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nonlinear bond-based peridynamics has a simple sufficient condition for solution uniqueness, and that condition can be hard-wired into a neural operator. For small deformations, where the bond stretch linearizes as $\lambda \approx 1 + \xi\cdot\eta/|\xi|^2$, the paper proves that if the micropotential $w(\lambda,\xi)$ is strictly convex in $\lambda$ for every bond vector $\xi$, then any two minimizers of the total energy are equivalent: they differ only by a rigid translation, a rigid rotation, or both. Because the pairwise force in a microelastic material is $\partial w/\partial\eta$, convexity is equivalent to the stretch-dependent part $g(\lambda)$ being a monotonically increasing function. The proposed Monotone Peridynamic Neural Operator therefore parameterizes $g$ with a monotone gradient network and the influence function $k(\xi)$ with a nonnegative-output network, learning both from full-field displacement-loading data. The paper then demonstrates convergence of the learned model to the ground truth as the grid spacing decreases and shows that the unique small-deformation solution serves as a robust initial guess for large-deformation simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness guarantee rests on the assertion that the special monotone-gradient network outputs a monotonically increasing function of the bond stretch for every allowed set of weights; the paper cites the architecture's design for this property but does not prove it or constrain the shared weight matrix, so if training ever produces a non-monotone realization, the convex-energy hypothesis, and with it the uniqueness theorem, no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Downstream simulations with new, unseen loadings will return a single displacement field, up to rigid motion, in the small-deformation regime, eliminating divergent or nonphysical solution branches.
  • Learning the constitutive relation as a monotone stretch function plus a nonnegative kernel does not destroy expressive power: on the synthetic hyperelastic dataset the learned product $g(\lambda)k(\xi)$ reaches sub-percent errors and converges as the measurement grid is refined.
  • The two-phase solver, which uses the unique small-deformation solution as an initial guess, extends robustness to large-deformation settings where strict convexity is not required.
  • The same architecture transfers to real data: a homogenized continuum model learned from molecular dynamics simulations predicts forces and displacements on a different domain under discontinuous loadings.
  • The convergence analysis provides a practical diagnostic: at least first-order, and under smoothness assumptions second-order, decay of model error with mesh refinement, so grid-convergence tests can validate learned nonlocal laws.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If monotonicity of the mGradNet-C architecture can be rigorously proved, or replaced by a provably monotone parameterization, the convex-energy template should extend to state-based peridynamics and to dynamic problems, where uniqueness would prevent spurious oscillations in long-time simulations.
  • The strict-convexity condition is sufficient but likely not necessary; a weaker monotone-operator condition on the force could give existence and uniqueness in larger deformation regimes, which is a testable reformulation of the theorem.
  • Because the kernel $k(\xi)$ carries material-specific microstructure while $g(\lambda)$ is shared, MPNO could serve as a foundational material model: pretrain $g$ once, then fit only $k$ per material, with the uniqueness guarantee carrying over unchanged.
  • The two-phase solver's success suggests that the small-deformation unique solution acts as a natural branch selector in the large-deformation regime; whether that selection always picks the physically preferred branch is a question the paper leaves open.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Monotone Peridynamic Neural Operator (MPNO), a bond-based peridynamic constitutive model learned from full-field displacement/force data. The constitutive relation is parameterized by a monotone gradient network for g(λ) and an MLP with a final ReLU for the kernel k(ξ). The authors prove a uniqueness theorem (Theorem 3.2) for the energy functional under a small-deformation linearization, propose a two-phase solver, give a truncation-error analysis for kernel and stretch learning, and report experiments on a 1D Blatz-Ko synthetic model and a 2D molecular-dynamics homogenization task.

Significance. If the claims held, MPNO would be a valuable step toward data-driven constitutive models with a priori well-posedness guarantees in small-deformation regimes. The paper's positive contributions are a rigorous, if elementary, uniqueness condition for the linearized bond-based peridynamic energy; an architecture that provably produces monotone gradient maps (for scalar stretch, monotonicity does not require positivity of W); and an experimental demonstration of convergence with grid refinement and of robust downstream solution. The application to molecular dynamics data on an unseen domain is a strong practical result. However, the central guarantee as stated is not established for the actual nonlinear operator used in the solver, and the theoretical convergence analysis is conditional on unquantified training residuals. These issues require a substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1–§3.2, Theorem 3.2 and Eq. (3.4)] Theorem 3.2 proves uniqueness only for the linearized energy with λ ≈ 1 + ξ·η/|ξ|², but the MPNO operator in Eq. (3.4) and the solver in Algorithm 3.1 use the exact stretch λ = |ξ+η|/|ξ| and force direction (ξ+η)/|ξ+η|. Strict convexity of w in λ does not in general imply convexity of w(|ξ+η|/|ξ|, ξ) in η, since the norm is nonlinear and w need not be nondecreasing; indeed, the Blatz-Ko g(λ)=λ−λ⁻³ used in Section 4 is negative for λ<1, so its primitive is not monotone there. Consequently, no result in the paper rules out multiple solutions of the nonlinear equation that is actually solved, and the abstract and Section 6 statements promising 'guaranteed solution uniqueness of MPNO' are overbroad. At minimum, the uniqueness claim should be explicitly restricted to the linearized small-deformation model, and the relation to the nonlinear solver should be presented as empirical.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (3.5)] The monotonicity of mGradNet-C does not require a nonnegativity constraint on W: for scalar λ, the recursion gives d z_l/dλ = p_l ⊙ W with p_l ≥ 0, so the output derivative is a sum of squared entries times nonnegative factors. However, strict convexity of the energy density is not guaranteed. Theorem 3.2 requires w(·,ξ) to be strictly convex for every ξ, but the architecture only enforces g' ≥ 0; intervals where α_l or the relevant W components vanish give g' = 0 and hence only weak convexity. Moreover, kNN is constrained only by a final ReLU to be nonnegative, so where kNN(ξ)=0 the micropotential is independent of λ and strict convexity fails. The paper does not state additional conditions (e.g., positive lower bounds on the scaling weights and on kNN) under which the theorem's hypothesis is satisfied, so the claimed architectural guarantee is not established.
  3. [§4.2, Lemma 4.1 and Remark 4.2] The theoretical convergence statement is weaker than the abstract suggests. Lemma 4.1 bounds ∥A(kNN−ktrue)∥ by O(Δx^q)+O(∥e_k∥), where e_k is the training residual; the second term is not quantified and depends on the optimization, and Remark 4.2 notes that the condition number of A^T A grows as Δx→0, so the bound does not imply convergence of kNN to ktrue in the reported norm. The numerical convergence shown in Fig. 5 is encouraging, but the claim in the abstract that convergence 'is shown theoretically' should be softened to a conditional estimate.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.1, proof of Theorem 3.2] The strict-convexity argument should spell out that η ↦ 1 + ξ·η/|ξ|² is affine, so composition with strictly convex w yields strict convexity in η; the 'if and only if' statement for equivalence also needs an explicit justification.
  2. [§3.3, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12)] The empirical measures ρξ and ρλ use weights w^{(i)} and v^{(i)} that appear to omit the other factor of the product g(λ)k(ξ); please clarify the definitions.
  3. [§3.6, Algorithm 3.1] In the neighbor search in line 3, the exclusion of the point xk = xj should be stated explicitly.
  4. [§4.1, Table 1] The sentence in the text that the one-phase solution has 'a higher average error' is vague; please quote the numerical values from Table 1.
  5. [References] References [51] and [52] are the same paper; also [8] should include the volume/page or DOI for the Gradient networks article.
  6. [§3.4, Eq. (3.10)] The notation (G^NN_{Δx})^{-1} in Eq. (3.10) is nonstandard; define it as the numerical solution map of the learned model.
  7. [Throughout] There are several typos, e.g., 'trianing' in §3.3 and 'oftaining' in §6; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the uniqueness theorem is an independent variational proof and the convergence study is a standard consistency check.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 3.2, is derived from a mathematical assumption (strict convexity of w in lambda) together with the affine small-deformation linearization (3.3); the proof does not use the training data, the fitted parameters, or a self-citation as a premise. The monotonicity of mGradNet-C is imported from an external architecture reference [8] and is not equivalent to the target uniqueness result; for the scalar bond stretch lambda, the recursion in Eq. (3.5) yields a nonnegative derivative for any shared weight vector W whenever the alpha, beta weights are nonnegative and the activations are increasing. The convergence analysis in Lemma 4.1 uses the fact that the residual of the true kernel on the training grid is the quadrature error r_k = A k_true + b = O((Delta x)^q); this is a standard consistency statement about the same Riemann-sum discretization used to generate the synthetic data, not a prediction that is statistically forced by fitted parameters. Self-citations to earlier PNO papers and MD data references are contextual and not load-bearing: none is invoked to justify the uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative architectures. The remaining concerns, such as Theorem 3.2 covering only the linearized stretch while Algorithm 3.1 solves the exact nonlinear model, or the architecture enforcing monotone g rather than strict convexity of w, are correctness and scope gaps rather than circular reductions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its own claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on standard convex analysis and on the separable microelastic peridynamic model. The only hand-chosen inputs are the horizon and normalization convention. No new physical entities are introduced. The monotonicity guarantee of the mGradNet-C architecture is an assumption imported from reference [8] without explicit constraints.

free parameters (2)
  • horizon δ = 0.25 (1D synthetic), 4.2 (MD)
    Defines the nonlocal interaction radius; chosen by hand per dataset, not learned. The solution and kernel depend on this choice.
  • normalization constant for kNN = ∫_{Bδ(0)} kNN dξ = ∫_{Bδ(0)} k dξ
    In the synthetic experiments, the learned kernel is rescaled using the ground-truth integral to resolve the inherent g*k scale ambiguity; this uses ground-truth information and affects reported model errors.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Separable microelastic bond-based model, Eq. (2.5): ∂w/∂λ · 1/|ξ| := g(λ)k(ξ), k(ξ) ≥ 0.
    The entire model class is restricted to this separable form; materials not in this class cannot be represented, and the uniqueness proof is for this model only.
  • domain assumption Small deformation linearization, Eq. (3.3): λ ≈ 1 + ξ·η/|ξ|^2 and (ξ+η)/|ξ+η| ≈ ξ/|ξ|.
    Theorem 3.2 is proven for the linearized energy, so the uniqueness guarantee only applies in the small-deformation regime; the large-deformation solver uses the small-deformation solution only as an initial guess.
  • ad hoc to paper The mGradNet-C architecture, Eq. (3.5), with nonnegative α,β and increasing activations, guarantees that gNN is the gradient of a convex function and hence monotone increasing.
    This is the load-bearing property for the uniqueness guarantee. The paper cites [8] but does not state the constraints on the shared weight matrix W or prove the monotonicity property in this paper.
  • standard math Existence of minimizers of the energy functional E[u] in Eq. (3.1).
    The theorem proves uniqueness conditional on existence; existence is not addressed, which is a gap but a standard variational assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monotone Peridynamic Neural Operator for Nonlinear Material Modeling with Conditionally Unique Solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HC4ADBO7

@misc{pith2026250501060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monotone Peridynamic Neural Operator for Nonlinear Material Modeling with Conditionally Unique Solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HC4ADBO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01060}
}
read the original abstract

Data-driven methods have emerged as powerful tools for modeling the responses of complex nonlinear materials directly from experimental measurements. Among these methods, the data-driven constitutive models present advantages in physical interpretability and generalizability across different boundary conditions/domain settings. However, the well-posedness of these learned models is generally not guaranteed a priori, which makes the models prone to non-physical solutions in downstream simulation tasks. In this study, we introduce monotone peridynamic neural operator (MPNO), a novel data-driven nonlocal constitutive model learning approach based on neural operators. Our approach learns a nonlocal kernel together with a nonlinear constitutive relation, while ensuring solution uniqueness through a monotone gradient network. This architectural constraint on gradient induces convexity of the learnt energy density function, thereby guaranteeing solution uniqueness of MPNO in small deformation regimes. To validate our approach, we evaluate MPNO's performance on both synthetic and real-world datasets. On synthetic datasets with manufactured kernel and constitutive relation, we show that the learnt model converges to the ground-truth as the measurement grid size decreases both theoretically and numerically. Additionally, our MPNO exhibits superior generalization capabilities than the conventional neural networks: it yields smaller displacement solution errors in down-stream tasks with new and unseen loadings. Finally, we showcase the practical utility of our approach through applications in learning a homogenized model from molecular dynamics data, highlighting its expressivity and robustness in real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Synthetic dataset from 1D Blatz-Ko model: two exemplar data pairs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Synthetic dataset from 1D Blatz-Ko model with a fine mesh (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synthetic dataset from 1D Blatz-Ko model (Ex-I): solving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Synthetic dataset from 1D Blatz-Ko model (Ex-I): learned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic dataset from 1D Blatz-Ko model: convergence of the errors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Synthetic dataset from 1D Blatz-Ko model: comparison of learned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Molecular dynamics simulation dataset: exemplar training and test samples. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Molecular dynamics simulation dataset: results from MPNO. Left: training, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Molecular dynamics simulation dataset: exemplar learning results from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Neural Interpretable PDEs: Harmonizing Fourier Insights with Attention for Scalable and Interpretable Physics Discovery

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    NIPS is a neural operator that uses linear attention and Fourier kernels to simultaneously predict PDE solutions and recover hidden material properties from limited data.

  2. A physics-guided smoothing method for material modeling with digital image correlation (DIC) measurements

    eess.IV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A physics-constrained smoothing method removes non-physical negative strains from DIC data and improves downstream learning of material constitutive laws on glove and heart-valve datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Akerson, A

    A. Akerson, A. Rajan, and K. Bhattacharya , Learning constitutive relations from experi- ments: 1. pde constrained optimization , arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02864, (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Z. Bai, S. L. Brunton, B. W. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, E. Kaiser, A. Spohn, and B. R. Noack, Data-driven methods in fluid dynamics: Sparse classification from experimental data, Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    J. M. Ball , Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity , Archive for rational mechanics and Analysis, 63 (1976), pp. 337–403

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharya, L

    K. Bhattacharya, L. Cao, G. Stepaniants, A. Stuart, and M. Trautner, Learning mem- ory and material dependent constitutive laws , arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05463, (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Bobaru, J

    F. Bobaru, J. T. Foster, P. H. Geubelle, and S. A. Silling , Handbook of peridynamic modeling, CRC press, 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    S. Cai, Z. Mao, Z. Wang, M. Yin, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review , Acta Mechanica Sinica, (2022), pp. 1–12

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov ´a, Machine learning and the physical sciences , Reviews of Modern Physics, 91 (2019), p. 045002

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Chaudhari, S

    S. Chaudhari, S. Pranav, and J. M. Moura , Gradient networks , IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, (2024). MONOTONE PERIDYNAMIC NEURAL OPERATOR 21

    work page 2024

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Du and K

    Q. Du and K. Zhou , Mathematical analysis for the peridynamic nonlocal continuum theory , ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 45 (2011), pp. 217–234

    2011

  2. [10]

    Emmrich and O

    E. Emmrich and O. Weckner , Analysis and numerical approximation of an integro- differential equation modeling non-local effects in linear elasticity , Mathematics and Me- chanics of Solids, 12 (2007), pp. 363–384

    2007

  3. [11]

    D. J. Fitzpatrick, K. Pham, C. J. Ross, L. T. Hudson, D. W. Laurence, Y. Yu, and C.-H. Lee , Ex vivo experimental characterizations for understanding the interrelation- ship between tissue mechanics and collagen microstructure of porcine mitral valve leaflets , Journal of the ...

    2022

  4. [12]

    J. N. Fuhg, G. Anantha Padmanabha, N. Bouklas, B. Bahmani, W. Sun, N. N. Vlassis, M. Flaschel, P. Carrara, and L. De Lorenzis , A review on data-driven constitutive laws for solids , Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, (2024), pp. 1–43

    2024

  5. [13]

    J. N. Fuhg and N. Bouklas , On physics-informed data-driven isotropic and anisotropic con- stitutive models through probabilistic machine learning and space-filling sampling , Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 394 (2022), p. 114915

    2022

  6. [14]

    Y. Geng, O. Burkovska, L. Ju, G. Zhang, and M. Gunzburger , An end-to-end deep learn- ing method for solving nonlocal allen–cahn and cahn–hilliard phase-field models, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 436 (2025), p. 117721

    2025

  7. [15]

    Ghaboussi, J

    J. Ghaboussi, J. Garrett Jr, and X. Wu , Knowledge-based modeling of material behavior with neural networks , Journal of engineering mechanics, 117 (1991), pp. 132–153

    1991

  8. [16]

    Goswami, M

    S. Goswami, M. Yin, Y. Yu, and G. E. Karniadakis , A physics-informed variational Deep- ONet for predicting crack path in quasi-brittle materials , Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 391 (2022), p. 114587

    2022

  9. [17]

    Haghighat, S

    E. Haghighat, S. Abouali, and R. Vaziri, Constitutive model characterization and discovery using physics-informed deep learning , Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 120 (2023), p. 105828

    2023

  10. [18]

    Q. He, D. W. Laurence, C.-H. Lee, and J.-S. Chen , Manifold learning based data-driven modeling for soft biological tissues , Journal of Biomechanics, 117 (2021), p. 110124

    2021

  11. [19]

    Jafarzadeh, S

    S. Jafarzadeh, S. Silling, N. Liu, Z. Zhang, and Y. Yu , Peridynamic neural operators: A data-driven nonlocal constitutive model for complex material responses , Computer Meth- ods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 425 (2024), p. 116914

    2024

  12. [20]

    Jafarzadeh, S

    S. Jafarzadeh, S. Silling, L. Zhang, C. Ross, C.-H. Lee, S. Rahman, S. Wang, and Y. Yu , Heterogeneous peridynamic neural operators: Discover biotissue constitutive law and microstructure from digital image correlation measurements , arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18597, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang, Physics- informed machine learning, Nature Reviews Physics, 3 (2021), pp. 422–440

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kashinath, M

    K. Kashinath, M. Mustafa, A. Albert, J. Wu, C. Jiang, S. Esmaeilzadeh, K. Azizzade- nesheli, R. Wang, A. Chattopadhyay, A. Singh, et al. , Physics-informed machine learning: case studies for weather and climate modelling , Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379...

    2021

  15. [23]

    I. G. Kevrekidis, C. W. Gear, and G. Hummer, Equation-free: The computer-aided analysis of complex multiscale systems , AIChE Journal, 50 (2004), pp. 1346–1355

    2004

  16. [24]

    Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anandkumar , Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equa- tions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03485, (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Z. Li, N. B. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anand- kumar, Fourier NeuralOperator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations , in Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Linka, S

    K. Linka, S. R. S. Pierre, and E. Kuhl , Automated model discovery for human brain using constitutive artificial neural networks , Acta Biomaterialia, 160 (2023), pp. 134–151

    2023

  19. [27]

    N. Liu, Y. Fan, X. Zeng, M. Kl ¨ower, and Y. Yu, Harnessing the power of neural operators with automatically encoded conservation laws , 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11176

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    N. Liu, X. Li, M. R. Rajanna, E. W. Reutzel, B. Sawyer, P. Rao, J. Lua, N. Phan, and Y. Yu , Deep neural operator enabled digital twin modeling for additive manufacturing , arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09572, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    N. Liu, Y. Yu, H. You, and N. Tatikola , INO: Invariant neural operators for learning complex physical systems with momentum conservation , in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2023, pp. 6822–6838

    2023

  22. [30]

    Z. Liu, C. Wu, and M. Koishi , A deep material network for multiscale topology learning and accelerated nonlinear modeling of heterogeneous materials, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 345 (2019), pp. 1138–1168. 22 J. WANG, X. TIAN, Z. ZHANG, S. SILLING, S...

    2019

  23. [31]

    F. Lu, Q. An, and Y. Yu , Nonparametric learning of kernels in nonlocal operators , Journal of Peridynamics and Nonlocal Modeling, (2023), pp. 1–24

    2023

  24. [32]

    J. Ma, F. Wu, J. Zhu, D. Xu, and D. Kong , A pre-trained convolutional neural network based method for thyroid nodule diagnosis , Ultrasonics, 73 (2017), pp. 221–230

    2017

  25. [33]

    Oommen, A

    V. Oommen, A. Bora, Z. Zhang, and G. E. Karniadakis , Integrating neural operators with diffusion models improves spectral representation in turbulence modeling , arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08477, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. L. Parks, R. B. Lehoucq, S. J. Plimpton, and S. A. Silling , Implementing peridynam- ics within a molecular dynamics code , Computer Physics Communications, 179 (2008), pp. 777–783

    2008

  27. [35]

    J. B. PArL, Application of finite elastic theory to the deformation of rubbery materials , Trans- actions of the Society of Rheology, 6 (1962), pp. 223–251

    1962

  28. [36]

    D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, A. G. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes , Ab initio solution of the many-electron schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural networks, Physical Review Research, 2 (2020), p. 033429

    2020

  29. [37]

    Riedmiller and A

    M. Riedmiller and A. Lernen , Multi layer perceptron, Machine learning lab special lecture, University of Freiburg, 24 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    R. T. Rockafellar, Convex analysis, vol. 28, Princeton university press, 1997

    1997

  31. [39]

    Ruthotto and E

    L. Ruthotto and E. Haber, Deep neural networks motivated by partial differential equations, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 62 (2020), pp. 352–364

    2020

  32. [40]

    Seleson, M

    P. Seleson, M. L. Parks, M. Gunzburger, and R. B. Lehoucq , Peridynamics as an up- scaling of molecular dynamics , Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 8 (2009), pp. 204–227

    2009

  33. [41]

    Silling and R

    S. Silling and R. Lehoucq , Peridynamic theory of solid mechanics , Advances in Applied Mechanics, 44 (2010), pp. 73–166

    2010

  34. [42]

    S. A. Silling , Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces , Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 48 (2000), pp. 175–209

    2000

  35. [43]

    S. A. Silling and F. Bobaru , Peridynamic modeling of membranes and fibers , International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 40 (2005), pp. 395–409

    2005

  36. [44]

    S. A. Silling, M. D’Elia, Y. Yu, H. You, and M. Fermen-Coker , Peridynamic model for single-layer graphene obtained from coarse-grained bond forces , Journal of Peridynamics and Nonlocal Modeling, 5 (2023), pp. 183–204

    2023

  37. [45]

    S. A. Silling, M. Epton, O. Weckner, J. Xu, and E. Askari , Peridynamic states and constitutive modeling, Journal of Elasticity, 88 (2007), pp. 151–184

    2007

  38. [46]

    V. Tac, F. S. Costabal, and A. B. Tepole , Data-driven tissue mechanics with polycon- vex neural ordinary differential equations , Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 398 (2022), p. 115248

    2022

  39. [47]

    Trask, C

    N. Trask, C. Martinez, T. Shilt, E. Walker, K. Lee, A. Garland, D. P. Adams, J. F. Curry, M. T. Dugger, S. R. Larson, et al. , Unsupervised physics-informed disentan- glement of multimodal materials data , Materials Today, 80 (2024), pp. 286–296

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wang, J.-L

    J.-X. Wang, J.-L. Wu, and H. Xiao , Physics-informed machine learning approach for re- constructing reynolds stress modeling discrepancies based on dns data , Physical Review Fluids, 2 (2017), p. 034603

    2017

  41. [49]

    Xu, X.-H

    R. Xu, X.-H. Zhou, J. Han, R. P. Dwight, and H. Xiao , A pde-free, neural network-based eddy viscosity model coupled with rans equations , International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 98 (2022), p. 109051

    2022

  42. [50]

    H. You, X. Xu, Y. Yu, S. Silling, M. D’Elia, and J. Foster , Towards a unified nonlocal, peridynamics framework for the coarse-graining of molecular dynamics data with fractures, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 44 (2023), pp. 1125–1150

    2023

  43. [52]

    H. You, Y. Yu, S. Silling, and M. D’Elia , A data-driven peridynamic continuum model for upscaling molecular dynamics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 389 (2022), p. 114400

    2022

  44. [53]

    Y. Yu, N. Liu, F. Lu, T. Gao, S. Jafarzadeh, and S. Silling , Nonlocal attention opera- tor: Materializing hidden knowledge towards interpretable physics discovery , Submitted preprint, (2024)

    2024

  45. [54]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Han, H. Wang, R. Car, and E. Weinan , Deep potential molecular dynamics: a scalable model with the accuracy of quantum mechanics , Physical Review Letters, 120 (2018), p. 143001

    2018

  46. [55]

    Zheng, J

    H. Zheng, J. R. Petrella, P. M. Doraiswamy, G. Lin, W. Hao, and A. D. N. Initiative , Data-driven causal model discovery and personalized prediction in alzheimer’s disease , MONOTONE PERIDYNAMIC NEURAL OPERATOR 23 NPJ digital medicine, 5 (2022), p. 137

    2022

  47. [56]

    Zimmermann, A continuum theory with long-range forces for solids , PhD thesis, Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, 2005

    M. Zimmermann, A continuum theory with long-range forces for solids , PhD thesis, Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, 2005

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.