Deep Learning in Geotechnical Engineering: A Critical Assessment of PINNs and Operator Learning

Deep learning methods -- physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), deep operator networks (DeepONet), and graph network simulators (GNS) -- are increasingly proposed for geotechnical problems. This paper tests these methods against traditional solvers on canonical problems: wave propagation and beam-foundation interaction. PINNs run 90,000 times slower than finite difference with larger errors. DeepONet requires thousands of training simulations and breaks even only after millions of evaluations. Multi-layer perceptrons fail catastrophically when extrapolating beyond training data -- the common case in geotechnical prediction. GNS shows promise for geometry-agnostic simulation but faces scaling limits and cannot capture path-dependent soil behavior. For inverse problems, automatic differentiation through traditional solvers recovers material parameters with sub-percent accuracy in seconds. We recommend: use automatic differentiation for inverse problems; apply site-based cross-validation to account for spatial autocorrelation; reserve neural networks for problems where traditional solvers are genuinely expensive and predictions remain within the training envelope. When a method is four orders of magnitude slower with less accuracy, it is not a viable replacement for proven solvers.