Do physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) need to be deep? Shallow PINNs using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
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.
arXiv:2606. 19754v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Partial differential equations (PDEs) play a central role in modeling complex physical, biological, and engineering systems.
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.
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.
The paper introduces a linearized Physics-Informed Neural Network (lPINN), a reduced‑order neural basis approach for solving forward and inverse differential equations. In an offline phase, lPINN learns continuous, differentiable neural basis functions from numerical solutions, which are then frozen for new problem instances; the online solution is obtained by minimizing the governing‑equation residual with additional constraints. Experiments on advection‑diffusion, Burgers', and nonlinear pendulum equations show that lPINN achieves lower solution and parameter errors than vanilla PINNs while reducing online inference times by up to three orders of magnitude, and its continuous representation generalizes to finer meshes without retraining.
arXiv:2607. 02194v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have emerged as a promising route to solve partial differential equations, yet they have struggled to reach the precision of classical solvers.