Understanding the Difficulty of Solving Cauchy Problems with PINNs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) have gained popularity in scientific computing in recent years. However, they often fail to achieve the same level of accuracy as classical methods in solving differential equations. In this paper, we identify two sources of this issue in the case of Cauchy problems: the use of L2 residuals as objective functions and the approximation gap of neural networks. We show that minimizing the sum of L2 residual and initial condition error is not sufficient to guarantee the true solution, as this loss function does not capture the underlying dynamics. Additionally, neural networks are not capable of capturing singularities in the solutions due to the non-compactness of their image sets. This, in turn, influences the existence of global minima and the regularity of the network. We demonstrate that when the global minimum does not exist, machine precision becomes the predominant source of achievable error in practice. We also present numerical experiments in support of our theoretical claims.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 May 2024.
Builds on
15 of 38 references.
References · 15
- 2017DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equationscited by 674
- 2021Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networkscited by 632
- 2020When and why PINNs fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspectivecited by 629
- 2021Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A reviewcited by 470
- 2021Neural Operator: Learning Maps Between Function Spacescited by 413
- 2020Self-Adaptive Physics-Informed Neural Networks using a Soft Attention Mechanismcited by 231
- 2019Deep Neural Network Approximation Theorycited by 92
- 2022Multifidelity deep neural operators for efficient learning of partial differential equations with application to fast inverse design of nanoscale heat transportcited by 92
- 2016Why Deep Neural Networks for Function Approximation?cited by 82
- 2021The Modern Mathematics of Deep Learningcited by 63
- 2021Neural Networks with Physics-Informed Architectures and Constraints for Dynamical Systems Modelingcited by 40
- 2020Bridging Physics-based and Data-driven modeling for Learning Dynamical Systemscited by 25
3 more
- 2022Experience report of physics-informed neural networks in fluid simulations: pitfalls and frustrationcited by 21
- 2023Minimum width for universal approximation using ReLU networks on compact domaincited by 17
- 2022Blow up phenomena for gradient descent optimization methods in the training of artificial neural networkscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.
5 papers.
- 2025Challenges and Advancements in Modeling Shock Fronts with Physics-Informed Neural Networks: A Review and Benchmarking Studycited by 11
- 2026Muon with Spectral Guidance: Efficient Optimization for Scientific Machine Learningcited by 4
- 2025Integration Matters for Learning PDEs with Backward SDEscited by 3
- 2026AdamFLIP: Adaptive Momentum Feedback Linearization Optimization for Hard Constrained PINN Trainingcited by 1
- 2026Neural Quantum Spectral Operator Learning for Solving Partial Differential Equationscited by 0
- 2026Neural Quantum Spectral Operator Learning for Solving Partial Differential Equations12 May 2026
- 2026AdamFLIP: Adaptive Momentum Feedback Linearization Optimization for Hard Constrained PINN Training8 May 2026
- 2026Muon with Spectral Guidance: Efficient Optimization for Scientific Machine Learning18 Feb 2026
- 2025Integration Matters for Learning PDEs with Backward SDEs2 May 2025
- 2025Challenges and Advancements in Modeling Shock Fronts with Physics-Informed Neural Networks: A Review and Benchmarking Study14 Mar 2025