ArticleComputational mechanics2024
Benchmarking physics-informed frameworks for data-driven hyperelasticity.
Article in Computational mechanics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monotone Peridynamic Neural Operator for Nonlinear Material Modeling with Conditionally Unique Solutions.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering · 2026Article
- Review
- A PHYSICS-GUIDED SMOOTHING METHOD FOR MATERIAL MODELING WITH DIGITAL IMAGE CORRELATION (DIC) MEASUREMENTS.Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing · 2025Article
- HETEROGENEOUS PERIDYNAMIC NEURAL OPERATORS: DISCOVER BIOTISSUE CONSTITUTIVE LAW AND MICROSTRUCTURE FROM DIGITAL IMAGE CORRELATION MEASUREMENTS.Foundations of data science (Springfield, Mo.) · 2025Article
- Generative Hyperelasticity with Physics-Informed Probabilistic Diffusion Fields.Engineering with computers · 2025Article
- Democratizing biomedical simulation through automated model discovery and a universal material subroutine.Computational mechanics · 2025Article
- Automated data-driven discovery of material models based on symbolic regression: A case study on the human brain cortex.Acta biomaterialia · 2024Article
- Data-driven continuum damage mechanics with built-in physics.Extreme Mechanics Letters · 2024Article
- Liquid Crystal Orientation and Shape Optimization for the Active Response of Liquid Crystal Elastomers.Polymers · 2024Article
- Filled Elastomers: Mechanistic and Physics-Driven Modeling and Applications as Smart Materials.Polymers · 2024Review
- Data-driven anisotropic finite viscoelasticity using neural ordinary differential equations.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data-driven methods have changed the way we understand and model materials. However, while providing unmatched flexibility, these methods have limitations such as reduced capacity to extrapolate, overfitting, and violation of physics constraints. Recently, frameworks that automatically satisfy these requirements have been proposed. Here we review, extend, and compare three promising data-driven methods: Constitutive Artificial Neural Networks (CANN), Input Convex Neural Networks (ICNN), and Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (NODE). Our formulation expands the strain energy potentials in terms of sums of convex non-decreasing functions of invariants and linear combinations of these. The expansion of the energy is shared across all three methods and guarantees the automatic satisfaction of objectivity, material symmetries, and polyconvexity, essential within the context of hyperelasticity. To benchmark the methods, we train them against rubber and skin stress-strain data. All three approaches capture the data almost perfectly, without overfitting, and have some capacity to extrapolate. This is in contrast to unconstrained neural networks which fail to make physically meaningful predictions outside the training range. Interestingly, the methods find different energy functions even though the prediction on the stress data is nearly identical. The most notable differences are observed in the second derivatives, which could impact performance of numerical solvers. On the rich data used in these benchmarks, the models show the anticipated trade-off between number of parameters and accuracy. Overall, CANN, ICNN and NODE retain the flexibility and accuracy of other data-driven methods without compromising on the physics. These methods are ideal options to model arbitrary hyperelastic material behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.