mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Constrained or Unconstrained? Neural-Network-Based Equation Discovery from Data

arXiv 2406.02581 ↗First posted 30 May 2024cs.LG cs.NA math.NAcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Throughout many fields, practitioners often rely on differential equations to model systems. Yet, for many applications, the theoretical derivation of such equations and/or accurate resolution of their solutions may be intractable. Instead, recently developed methods, including those based on parameter estimation, operator subset selection, and neural networks, allow for the data-driven discovery of both ordinary and partial differential equations (PDEs), on a spectrum of interpretability. The success of these strategies is often contingent upon the correct identification of representative equations from noisy observations of state variables and, as importantly and intertwined with that, the mathematical strategies utilized to enforce those equations. Specifically, the latter has been commonly addressed via unconstrained optimization strategies. Representing the PDE as a neural network, we propose to discover the PDE by solving a constrained optimization problem and using an intermediate state representation similar to a Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN). The objective function of this constrained optimization problem promotes matching the data, while the constraints require that the PDE is satisfied at several spatial collocation points. We present a penalty method and a widely used trust-region barrier method to solve this constrained optimization problem, and we compare these methods on numerical examples. Our results on the Burgers' and the Korteweg-De Vreis equations demonstrate that the latter constrained method outperforms the penalty method, particularly for higher noise levels or fewer collocation points. For both methods, we solve these discovered neural network PDEs with classical methods, such as finite difference methods, as opposed to PINNs-type methods relying on automatic differentiation. We briefly highlight other small, yet crucial, implementation details.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2024.

Builds on

27 of 57 references.

References · 27

  1. 2019DeepONet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operatorscited by 1,965
  2. 2021Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networkscited by 632
  3. 2020When and why PINNs fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspectivecited by 629
  4. 2022Scientific Machine Learning through Physics-Informed Neural Networks: Where we are and What's nextcited by 603
  5. 2021Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse designcited by 277
  6. 2018Deep Hidden Physics Models: Deep Learning of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equationscited by 233
  7. 2020Self-Adaptive Physics-Informed Neural Networks using a Soft Attention Mechanismcited by 231
  8. 2021Gradient-enhanced physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE problemscited by 220
  9. 2018PDE-Net 2.0: Learning PDEs from Data with A Numeric-Symbolic Hybrid Deep Networkcited by 208
  10. 2020Physics-informed learning of governing equations from scarce datacited by 167
  11. 2020Weak SINDy For Partial Differential Equationscited by 154
  12. 2020SINDy-PI: A Robust Algorithm for Parallel Implicit Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamicscited by 125
15 more
  1. 2021Parallel Physics-Informed Neural Networks via Domain Decompositioncited by 112
  2. 2021Efficient training of physics-informed neural networks via importance samplingcited by 109
  3. 2021PySINDy: A comprehensive Python package for robust sparse system identificationcited by 88
  4. 2022Symbolic Regression is NP-hardcited by 68
  5. 2023Learning Physical Models that Can Respect Conservation Lawscited by 58
  6. 2019Evaluating time series forecasting models: An empirical study on performance estimation methodscited by 52
  7. 2019Data-Driven Deep Learning of Partial Differential Equations in Modal Spacecited by 46
  8. 2021Physics and Equality Constrained Artificial Neural Networks: Application to Forward and Inverse Problems with Multi-fidelity Data Fusioncited by 38
  9. 2022Enhanced Physics-Informed Neural Networks with Augmented Lagrangian Relaxation Method (AL-PINNs)cited by 35
  10. 2021SPINN: Sparse, Physics-based, and partially Interpretable Neural Networks for PDEscited by 32
  11. 2021Deep Neural Network Modeling of Unknown Partial Differential Equations in Nodal Spacecited by 25
  12. 2022Investigating and Mitigating Failure Modes in Physics-informed Neural Networks (PINNs)cited by 17
  13. 2023A practical PINN framework for multi-scale problems with multi-magnitude loss termscited by 15
  14. 2022Simultaneous Identification and Denoising of Dynamical Systemscited by 10
  15. 2022A Priori Denoising Strategies for Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: A Comparative Studycited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

3 papers.