01 — Profile

Trained in mechanics,
building Physics AI.

Mechanics and mathematics first; computation and AI built on top.

02 — What I Build

Physics → computation → AI.

Four areas, one foundation: the physics and the numerical method come first.

03 — One Pipeline

From axioms to deployment.

These are not separate projects. Each stage feeds the next.

04 — Differentiable Simulation

Simulation you can differentiate.

Finite elements and peridynamics, with no assembled global matrix.

Flagship project · open source

Differentiable FEA — Beyond the Stiffness Matrix

Matrix-free differentiable finite elements: weak-form residuals and Jacobian–vector products are evaluated through automatic differentiation, enabling Newton–Krylov solution without explicitly assembling the global stiffness matrix.

Problem
Traditional nonlinear FEA repeatedly forms and solves large linearized systems involving a global stiffness (Jacobian) matrix. Here, large-strain hyperelastic problems are solved without forming it, and with exact derivatives.
Method
A PyTorch solver. Automatic differentiation supplies the residual and the Jacobian–vector products; preconditioned conjugate gradients needs only those products, inside an inexact Newton iteration.
Physics & math
Weak-form mechanics: equilibrium is a stationary point of the strain energy, so the residual and the tangent are its first and second derivatives. Design gradients follow from the implicit function theorem and one adjoint solve.
Result
  • < 10−13 relative agreement with FEniCSx/dolfinx (≤ 9×10−14) on identical discretizations
  • 11.6× faster GPU tangent product after profiling (element-wise versus batched matrix products; 40,000 Q4 elements, T4)
  • 2.9 s for a complete nonlinear solve of 10,000 Q4 elements on a T4 GPU

Scope. A linear system is still solved at every Newton step; what is avoided is assembling and storing the global matrix. Matrix-free evaluation does not by itself make every simulation faster: on a CPU in 2D an assembled sparse matrix is still faster per product. The advantage is expected for high-order elements, 3D and GPU memory, and has not been measured there yet. v0.1, 2D plane strain.

Completed: released, validated against FEniCSx and analytic solutionsPlanned: 3D elements, multigrid preconditioning, multi-GPU

Matrix-free Newton–Krylov

  1. Weak form∫ P(F) : ∇v dV − ℓ(v) = 0Equilibrium as a stationary point of the strain energy.
  2. Residual R(u)R(u) = fint(u) − fextEvaluated element by element at quadrature points.
  3. Automatic differentiationd/dε R(u + εv) at ε = 0Forward-mode derivative through the constitutive law.
  4. J(u)v no global matrixJ(u) vThe action of the tangent on a vector, which is all a Krylov method needs.
  5. Krylov solverJ δu = −R, solved inexactlyPreconditioned conjugate gradients with a loose, adaptive tolerance.
  6. Newton updateu ← u + α δuLine search, then repeat.

↺ repeat from the residual until ‖R(u)‖ is below tolerance

Featured project · with Prof. Ali Javili, Bilkent University

Differentiable Meshless Mechanics

Peridynamic simulation of fluid-driven fracture of a pre-cracked solid: damage, displacement magnitude and vertical displacement as the crack opens
Hydraulic fracture of a pre-cracked solid · damage, displacement, vertical displacement · no remeshing

Differentiable, autodiff-based peridynamics for nonlinear solid mechanics. The same idea as the finite-element solver, in a meshless setting: differentiable simulation is broader than FEA.

Cracks nucleate and propagate as bonds break, so brittle fracture, hydraulic fracture, and delamination need no remeshing and no crack-tracking rules.

Problem
Brittle and hydraulic fracture and Mode I / mixed-mode peeling (delamination) without remeshing.
Method
Differentiable meshless peridynamics (JAX, PyTorch), with a matrix-free dynamic-relaxation scheme in place of Newton–Raphson.
Physics & math
A nonlocal bond model in which damage is bond breakage. Dynamic relaxation converges through unstable crack propagation, where Newton–Raphson tangents become singular.
Result
  • 8–10× runtime speedup
  • 9.7×10−11 agreement with a validated reference solution

Ongoing: the full study is to be published

05 — Physics AI

The physics is the training signal.

Energy-trained networks and operators, checked against FEM.

Operator learning · DeepONet · FNO

Neural Operators

Surrogate versus operator

Traditional surrogateone input → one outpute.g. one load case → one solution
Neural operatora learned mapping between functions, fields, or physical conditionse.g. a load range → the whole deformation field
GeometryBoundary conditionsMaterialLoading
Neural operatorDeepONet · FNO
Physical fieldsdeformation · director · temperature · concentration
Validation against FEAnode by node against FEM / NEM · stability checks

Conceptual. In the DeepONet results the input is the load level; geometry and material as inputs are the goal.

DeepONets and Fourier neural operators for nonlinear mechanics and multiphysics. Rather than treating a network as a black-box replacement for simulation, the operator learns mappings that respect the structure of the physical system, and is validated against high-fidelity numerical solvers.

Problem
Nematic elastomers: the deformation and director fields are coupled and nonlinear, and the answer is wanted for a whole load range, not for one load case.
Method
An energy-trained DeepONet (and a physics-enforced network) over the geometry of the body, with no solution data. PI-FNO applies the Fourier-operator idea to heart sounds.
Physics & math
Stationarity of the total potential energy is the training signal. Conditions derived from quasiconvexity (strong ellipticity, second variation) validate every stored trajectory.
Result
  • ~0.5–0.7 ms per query for the full deformation and director fields, ~35–250× faster per query than a warm FEM solve (156-node plane-strain benchmark, CPU; training repaid after ~100–800 queries)
  • ~0.7% · 1.6–3% displacement error on unseen stretches, shear · uniaxial, against the same-mesh FEM reference
  • 97.5% test accuracy for PI-FNO heart-sound classification, a separate project (CNN baseline 96.0%)

Scope. The speed and error figures belong to this one DeepONet benchmark, not to every operator I have built. “Faster per query” compares one trained-operator evaluation with one warm FEM solve; it is not an overall speedup of a simulation campaign. The director angle is the least accurate output, and the DeepONet results are work in progress.

06 — Provable Mechanics

The foundation:
provable mechanics.

I did not come to Physics AI from generic machine learning.

I came to Physics AI from theoretical mechanics: constitutive modeling, thermodynamics, nonlinear elasticity, stability theory, and numerical simulation.

The Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering, UC Berkeley, with minors in Mathematics and Dynamics) was spent on the stability of generalized continua. The same results now work as computational checks on simulations and on neural-network output.

  • Quasiconvexity, rank-one convexity, Legendre–Hadamard conditions. Derived for Cosserat elasticity, fibrous composites, and liquid crystals, giving analytically rigorous output envelopes that serve as validation criteria for FEA and neural-network predictions.
  • Thermodynamically consistent constitutive models. Hydrogel swelling, cell migration, and shape memory alloys, where the second law restricts what a model may do.
  • Polyconvexity. Enforced as a hard architectural constraint when learning stored-energy functions for fibrous composites and biological tissues.
  • Generalized continua and fibrous materials. Cosserat, micropolar, and higher-gradient theories; Kirchhoff-rod models; fiber-reinforced shells; liquid crystal elastomers.

07 — More Projects

Theory, learning, and the rest.

Problem → method → physics & math → result.

All projects →

08 — Areas of Expertise

Research themes.

Different materials, one question: what does the physics actually require?

09 — Academic Journey

From Isfahan to Yale.