Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Deepmechanics

Abhay Shinde, Aryan Amit Barsainyan, Jose Siguenza, Ankita Vaishnobi Bisoi, Rakshit Kr. Singh +1 morePublished Feb 20, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.

Physics-informed deep learning models have emerged as powerful tools for learning dynamical systems. These models directly encode physical principles into network architectures. However, systematic benchmarking of these approaches across diverse physical phenomena remains limited, particularly in conservative and dissipative systems. In addition, benchmarking that has been done thus far does not integrate out full trajectories to check stability. In this work, we benchmark three prominent physics-informed architectures such as Hamiltonian Neural Networks (HNN), Lagrangian Neural Networks (LNN), and Symplectic Recurrent Neural Networks (SRNN) using the DeepChem framework, an open-source scientific machine learning library. We evaluate these models on six dynamical systems spanning classical conservative mechanics (mass-spring system, simple pendulum, double pendulum, and three-body problem, spring-pendulum) and non-conservative systems with contact (bouncing ball). We evaluate models by computing error on predicted trajectories and evaluate error both quantitatively and qualitatively. We find that all benchmarked models struggle to maintain stability for chaotic or nonconservative systems. Our results suggest that more research is needed for physics-informed deep learning models to learn robust models of classical mechanical systems.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
Physics-informed deep learning models have emerged as powerful tools for learning dynamical systems.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 24, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX