Shengbo Li
(, ), Yuanjun Dai
(, ), Zhenxu Sun
(, ), Dilong Guo
(, ), Guowei Yang
(, )
{"title":"A comparative study of preprocessing methods for physics-informed neural networks in fluid mechanics","authors":"Shengbo Li \n (, ), Yuanjun Dai \n (, ), Zhenxu Sun \n (, ), Dilong Guo \n (, ), Guowei Yang \n (, )","doi":"10.1007/s10409-026-25964-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As an emerging meshless method for solving partial differential equations (PDEs), physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have shown great potential in solving forward and inverse problems in fluid mechanics. Although the PINNs have been successfully applied to many branches of applied mathematics in recent years, their effectiveness and accuracy still require further improvement. Beyond the network architecture and learning algorithm, the preprocessing of data has been identified as a critical factor for PINNs performance. This study systematically compares PINNs preprocessing methods, with particular focus on three universal approaches (the non-dimensionalization, inner normalization layers, and synergistic normalization method for data and equation). We evaluate these approaches through ten benchmark fluid mechanics cases governed by fundamental PDEs types: elliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic, and mixed-type, covering forward and inverse problems. The results of the test cases show that adding normalization operations in PINNs significantly improves performance, which enhances training stability. However, their effectiveness varies substantially depending on the type of governing PDEs. For hyperbolic and mixed-type equations, which often exhibit ill-conditioned loss landscapes, the synergistic normalization method outperforms the alternatives notably. In contrast, for elliptic and parabolic problems with a well-conditioned loss, the SynerNorm method may be less effective than the inner normalization layer method. This study provides a practical reference for selecting preprocessing methods in different physical scenarios.\n</p><div><figure><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></figure></div></div>","PeriodicalId":7109,"journal":{"name":"Acta Mechanica Sinica","volume":"42 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Mechanica Sinica","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10409-026-25964-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
As an emerging meshless method for solving partial differential equations (PDEs), physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have shown great potential in solving forward and inverse problems in fluid mechanics. Although the PINNs have been successfully applied to many branches of applied mathematics in recent years, their effectiveness and accuracy still require further improvement. Beyond the network architecture and learning algorithm, the preprocessing of data has been identified as a critical factor for PINNs performance. This study systematically compares PINNs preprocessing methods, with particular focus on three universal approaches (the non-dimensionalization, inner normalization layers, and synergistic normalization method for data and equation). We evaluate these approaches through ten benchmark fluid mechanics cases governed by fundamental PDEs types: elliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic, and mixed-type, covering forward and inverse problems. The results of the test cases show that adding normalization operations in PINNs significantly improves performance, which enhances training stability. However, their effectiveness varies substantially depending on the type of governing PDEs. For hyperbolic and mixed-type equations, which often exhibit ill-conditioned loss landscapes, the synergistic normalization method outperforms the alternatives notably. In contrast, for elliptic and parabolic problems with a well-conditioned loss, the SynerNorm method may be less effective than the inner normalization layer method. This study provides a practical reference for selecting preprocessing methods in different physical scenarios.
期刊介绍:
Acta Mechanica Sinica, sponsored by the Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, promotes scientific exchanges and collaboration among Chinese scientists in China and abroad. It features high quality, original papers in all aspects of mechanics and mechanical sciences.
Not only does the journal explore the classical subdivisions of theoretical and applied mechanics such as solid and fluid mechanics, it also explores recently emerging areas such as biomechanics and nanomechanics. In addition, the journal investigates analytical, computational, and experimental progresses in all areas of mechanics. Lastly, it encourages research in interdisciplinary subjects, serving as a bridge between mechanics and other branches of engineering and the sciences.
In addition to research papers, Acta Mechanica Sinica publishes reviews, notes, experimental techniques, scientific events, and other special topics of interest.
Related subjects » Classical Continuum Physics - Computational Intelligence and Complexity - Mechanics