journal article·2025-01-18Open access

Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Modal Wave Field Predictions in 3D Room Acoustics

Stefan Schoder

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 2

Abstract

The generalization of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) used to solve the inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation in a simplified three-dimensional room is investigated. PINNs are appealing since they can efficiently integrate a partial differential equation and experimental data by minimizing a loss function. However, a previous study experienced limitations in acoustics regarding the source term. A challenging but realistic excitation case is a confined (e.g., single-point) excitation area, yielding a smooth spatial wave field periodically with the wavelength. Compared to studies using smooth (unrealistic) sound excitation, the network’s generalization capabilities regarding a realistic sound excitation are addressed. Different methods like hyperparameter optimization, adaptive refinement, Fourier feature engineering, and locally adaptive activation functions with slope recovery are tested to tailor the PINN’s accuracy to an experimentally validated finite element analysis reference solution computed with openCFS. The hyperparameter study and optimization are conducted regarding the network depth and width, the learning rate, the used activation functions, and the deep learning backends (PyTorch 2.5.1, TensorFlow 2.18.0 1, TensorFlow 2.18.0 2, JAX 0.4.39). A modified (feature-engineered) PINN architecture was designed using input feature engineering to include the dispersion relation of the wave in the neural network. For smoothly (unrealistic) distributed sources, it was shown that the standard PINNs and the feature-engineered PINN converge to the analytic solution, with a relative error of 0.28% and 2×10−4%, respectively. The locally adaptive activation functions with the slope lead to a relative error of 0.086% with a source sharpness of s=1 m. Similar relative errors were obtained for the case s=0.2 m using adaptive refinement. The feature-engineered PINN significantly outperformed the results of previous studies regarding accuracy. Furthermore, the trainable parameters were reduced to a fraction by Bayesian hyperparameter optimization (around 5%), and likewise, the training time (around 3%) was reduced compared to the standard PINN formulation. By narrowing this excitation towards a single point, the convergence rate and minimum errors obtained of all presented network architectures increased. The feature-engineered architecture yielded a one order of magnitude lower accuracy of 0.20% compared to 0.019% of the standard PINN formulation with a source sharpness of s=1 m. It outperformed the finite element analysis and the standard PINN in terms time needed to obtain the solution, needing 15 min and 30 s on an AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 8840HS CPU (AMD, Santa Clara, CA, USA) for the FEM, compared to about 20 min (standard PINN) and just under a minute of the feature-engineered PINN, both trained on a Tesla T4 GPU (NVIDIA, Santa Clara, CA, USA).
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Speech and Audio Processing · Acoustic Wave Phenomena Research · Music and Audio Processing

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 18/I, 8010 Graz, Austria

Funding

TU Graz Open Access Publishing Fund

References (55)

Show source-provided references
1. Room acoustic simulation and virtual reality-Technological trends, challenges, and opportunities
2. Computer simulations in room acoustics: Concepts and uncertainties10.1121/1.4788978 ↗
3. Physics-informed neural networks for acoustic boundary admittance estimation10.1016/j.ymssp.2024.111405 ↗
4. A Validated Finite Element Model for Room Acoustic Treatments with Edge Absorbers10.1051/aacus/2023044 ↗
5. Schoder, S., and Kraxberger, F. (2024). Feasibility study on solving the Helmholtz equation in 3D with PINNs. arXiv.
6. Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse design10.1137/21M1397908 ↗
7. Physics-informed neural networks for inverse problems in nano-optics and metamaterials10.1364/OE.384875 ↗
8. Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next10.1007/s10915-022-01939-z ↗
9. DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equations10.1137/19M1274067 ↗
10. Solving the frequency-domain acoustic VTI wave equation using physics-informed neural networks10.1093/gji/ggab010 ↗
11. Hyper-parameter tuning of physics-informed neural networks: Application to Helmholtz problems10.1016/j.neucom.2023.126826 ↗
12. Gladstone, R.J., Nabian, M.A., and Meidani, H. (2022). FO-PINNs: A First-Order formulation for Physics Informed Neural Networks. arXiv.
13. Helmholtz-equation solution in nonsmooth media by a physics-informed neural network incorporating quadratic terms and a perfectly matching layer condition10.1190/geo2022-0479.1 ↗
14. Deep Kronecker neural networks: A general framework for neural networks with adaptive activation functions10.1016/j.neucom.2021.10.036 ↗
15. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for wave propagation and full waveform inversions10.1029/2021JB023120 ↗
16. Physics-informed neural network for ultrasound nondestructive quantification of surface breaking cracks10.1007/s10921-020-00705-1 ↗
17. A Physics-Informed Neural Network-Based Waveguide Eigenanalysis10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3452160 ↗
18. Physics-informed neural networks with embedded analytical models: Inverse design of multilayer dielectric-loaded rectangular waveguide devices10.1109/TMTT.2023.3343028 ↗
19. Schoder, S., Museljic, E., Kraxberger, F., and Wurzinger, A. (2023, January 12–16). Post-processing subsonic flows using physics-informed neural networks. Proceedings of the 2023 AIAA Aviation Forum, AIAA, San Diego, CA, USA.10.2514/6.2023-3340 ↗
20. Markidis, S. (2021). The old and the new: Can physics-informed deep-learning replace traditional linear solvers?. Front. Big Data, 4.10.3389/fdata.2021.669097 ↗
21. Xu, Z.Q.J., Zhang, Y., Luo, T., Xiao, Y., and Ma, Z. (2019). Frequency principle: Fourier analysis sheds light on deep neural networks. arXiv.
22. Kraxberger, F., Kurz, E., Merkel, L., Kaltenbacher, M., and Schoder, S. (2023, January 6–9). Finite Element Simulation of Edge Absorbers for Room Acoustic Applications. Proceedings of the Fortschritte der Akustik—DAGA 2023, Hamburg, Germany.
23. Acoustic modeling using the aeroacoustic wave equation based on Pierce’s operator10.2514/1.J062558 ↗
24. Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., and Antiga, L. (2019). PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, Curran Associates, Inc.
25. Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado, G.S., Davis, A., Dean, J., and Devin, M. (2024, October 20). TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. Available online: https://tensorflow.org.
26. Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., Johnson, M.J., Leary, C., Maclaurin, D., Necula, G., Paszke, A., VanderPlas, J., and Wanderman-Milne, S. (2024, November 15). JAX: Composable Transformations of Python+NumPy Programs. Available online: https://jax.readthedocs.io.
27. Locally adaptive activation functions with slope recovery for deep and physics-informed neural networks10.1098/rspa.2020.0334 ↗
28. On the eigenvector bias of Fourier feature networks: From regression to solving multi-scale PDEs with physics-informed neural networks10.1016/j.cma.2021.113938 ↗
29. Pierce, A.D. (2019). Acoustics: An Introduction to Its Physical Principles and Applications, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-11214-1 ↗
30. Schoder, S., and Roppert, K. (2022). openCFS: Open Source Finite Element Software for Coupled Field Simulation—Part Acoustics. arXiv.
31. Discrete dispersion relation for hp-version finite element approximation at high wave number10.1137/S0036142903423460 ↗
32. Kaltenbacher, M. (2015). Numerical Simulation of Mechatronic Sensors and Actuators: Finite Elements for Computational Multiphysics, Springer. [3rd ed.].10.1007/978-3-642-40170-1 ↗
33. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 ↗
34. The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain10.1037/h0042519 ↗
35. Haykin, S. (1998). Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, Prentice Hall PTR.
36. Kingma, D.P., and Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv.
37. On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization10.1007/BF01589116 ↗
38. Learning representations by back-propagating errors10.1038/323533a0 ↗
39. Automatic differentiation in machine learning: A survey
40. Teh, Y.W., and Titterington, M. (2010, January 13–15). Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Chia Laguna Resort, Sardinia, Italy. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research.
41. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition10.1109/5.726791 ↗
42. Xiao, H., Rasul, K., and Vollgraf, R. (2017). Fashion-mnist: A novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms. arXiv.
43. Clanuwat, T., Bober-Irizar, M., Kitamoto, A., Lamb, A., Yamamoto, K., and Ha, D. (2018). Deep learning for classical japanese literature. arXiv.
44. Srl, B.T., and Brescia, I. (1994). Semeion Handwritten Digit Data Set, Semeion Research Center of Sciences of Communication.
45. Netzer, Y., Wang, T., Coates, A., Bissacco, A., Wu, B., and Ng, A.Y. (2011, January 12–14). Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. Proceedings of the NIPS Workshop on Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning, Granada, Spain.
46. Krizhevsky, A., and Hinton, G. (2024, November 15). Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Learning-Multiple-Layers-of-Features-from-Tiny-Krizhevsky/5d90f06bb70a0a3dced62413346235c02b1aa086.
47. Cao, Y., Fang, Z., Wu, Y., Zhou, D.X., and Gu, Q. (2019). Towards understanding the spectral bias of deep learning. arXiv.
48. Rahaman, N., Baratin, A., Arpit, D., Draxler, F., Lin, M., Hamprecht, F., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A. (2019, January 9–15). On the spectral bias of neural networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, CA, USA.
49. Ronen, B., Jacobs, D., Kasten, Y., and Kritchman, S. (2019). The convergence rate of neural networks for learned functions of different frequencies. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 32.
50. Analysis of the co-rotating vortex pair as a test case for computational aeroacoustics10.1016/j.jsv.2024.118496 ↗
51. Wurzinger, A., and Schoder, S. (2024). pyCFS-data: Data Processing Framework in Python for openCFS. arXiv.
52. Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics10.1121/1.382599 ↗
53. Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networks
54. Zeng, C., Burghardt, T., and Gambaruto, A.M. (2024). Training dynamics in Physics-Informed Neural Networks with feature mapping. arXiv.
55. On the use of Fourier Features-Physics Informed Neural Networks (FF-PINN) for forward and inverse fluid mechanics problems