arXiv AI
Aug 28

Physics-Informed Stochastic Configuration Machine: A Backpropagation-Free Neural Network with Fast Training for Nonlinear Differential Equations

The paper introduces the Physics-Informed Stochastic Configuration Machine (PI‑SCM), a backpropagation‑free neural network designed for solving nonlinear differential equations. By analytically evaluating local Jacobians, PI‑SCM linearizes the physical loss, enabling optimal weight determination through generalized linear least squares and avoiding iterative nonlinear optimization. The authors present a progressive algorithmic suite—PI‑SC‑I, PI‑SC‑II, and PI‑SC‑III—prove their universal approximation properties, and show through experiments that PI‑SCM achieves high‑fidelity predictions and parameter identification while accelerating training by orders of magnitude compared to standard PINNs.

By Yuehao Song (School of Automation, Central South University, Changsha, China), Zhong Chen (School of Automation, Central South University, Changsha, China), Lihui Cen (School of Automation, Central South University, Changsha, China), Liang Wu (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA), Kai Zhang (State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, China)
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 11

Adjoint Method versus Physics-Informed Neural Networks in PDE-Constrained Inverse Problems

arXiv:2606. 12337v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Inverse problems governed by partial differential equations (PDEs) are central to computational mechanics and are commonly solved by adjoint-based optimization, while physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have emerged as a flexible alternative.

By Zhen Zhang, Alessandro Alla, George Em Karniadakis
arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago

Examining the robustness of Physics-Informed Neural Networks to noise for Inverse Problems

The paper evaluates the robustness of Physics‑Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) against noisy data in inverse problems, comparing them to a finite element method (FEM) plus optimizer baseline. Experiments on viscosity identification in 1D Burgers’ equation and 2D/3D Taylor‑Green Vortex with additive Gaussian noise show that PINNs, while requiring less human expertise, are outperformed by the traditional FEM approach in accuracy (e.g., RMSE 0.01 vs. 0.0013 for 2D Taylor‑Green with σ=1). PINNs do, however, exhibit better scaling with problem complexity, and the study highlights specific training failures that must be addressed for PINNs to become more competitive.

By Aleksandra Jekic, Afroditi Natsaridou, Signe Riemer-S{\o}rensen, Helge Langseth, Odd Erik Gundersen