This article provides a concise reference of 21 common PINN journals, organized by region and TOP status, and offers practical advice on matching your research to the right audience rather than chasing journal rankings.
This article reviews the 1994 Dissanayake & Phan‑Thien and 1998 Lagaris et al. papers that first introduced feed‑forward neural networks as continuous trial functions for PDEs, contrasting their soft‑penalty and hard‑encoding boundary treatments and showing how they prefigure modern physics‑informed neural networks.
This article analyzes the Science paper that uses physics‑informed neural networks (HFM) to infer complete velocity and pressure fields from only passive scalar concentration data such as smoke or dye, detailing the mathematical formulation, network architecture, training strategy, benchmark results, robustness studies, and the method’s limitations and broader impact.
The article explains that physics‑informed neural networks often stall because the PDE residual loss dominates the boundary‑condition loss, causing severe gradient imbalance, and presents two remedies—an adaptive loss‑weighting scheme and a modified fully‑connected architecture—that together can improve prediction accuracy by up to two orders of magnitude.
This review of the 2021 Nature Reviews Physics article maps the emerging field of physics‑informed machine learning, outlines three bias pathways for embedding physics, compares PINNs, Neural Operators and other methods, discusses software ecosystems, practical guidelines, and future research directions.
This article reviews the highly cited 2019 JCP paper that introduced Physics‑Informed Neural Networks, explains their core idea of embedding PDE residuals into the loss, compares them with contemporaneous methods, details implementation choices, showcases forward and inverse experiments, and discusses their impact, limitations, and future research directions.
