arXiv Machine Learning By Ali AlHadi Kalout, Pablo Tejerina-P\'erez, Konstantin Karchev, Pedro Taranc\'on-\'Alvarez, Leonid Sarieddine, Raul Jimenez, Max Engelstein, Guy David

Recovering Sharp Conductivity Features in the Finite-Data Calder\'on Problem with Physics-Informed Neural Networks

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2606. 28158v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have recently emerged as a promising framework for addressing the Calder\'on inverse problem from limited boundary data.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

Neural network-driven domain decomposition for efficient solutions to the Helmholtz equation

The paper presents Finite Basis Physics-Informed Neural Networks (FBPINNs) and their multilevel extensions as a new approach to solving the Helmholtz equation. By decomposing the computational domain into overlapping sub‑domains, each governed by a local neural network, the method aims to improve accuracy and computational efficiency for high‑frequency wave problems in complex two‑dimensional domains. The authors evaluate the technique on the homogeneous Helmholtz case, showing its potential to overcome limitations of traditional finite difference and finite element methods.

By Victorita Dolean, Daria Hrebenshchykova, St\'ephane Lanteri, Victor Michel-Dansac
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31

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