BWLer: Barycentric Weight Layer Elucidates a Precision-Conditioning Tradeoff for PINNs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) offer a flexible way to solve partial differential equations (PDEs) with machine learning, yet they still fall well short of the machine-precision accuracy many scientific tasks demand. In this work, we investigate whether the precision ceiling comes from the ill-conditioning of the PDEs or from the typical multi-layer perceptron (MLP) architecture. We introduce the Barycentric Weight Layer (BWLer), which models the PDE solution through barycentric polynomial interpolation. A BWLer can be added on top of an existing MLP (a BWLer-hat) or replace it completely (explicit BWLer), cleanly separating how we represent the solution from how we take derivatives for the PDE loss. Using BWLer, we identify fundamental precision limitations within the MLP: on a simple 1-D interpolation task, even MLPs with O(1e5) parameters stall around 1e-8 RMSE -- about eight orders above float64 machine precision -- before any PDE terms are added. In PDE learning, adding a BWLer lifts this ceiling and exposes a tradeoff between achievable accuracy and the conditioning of the PDE loss. For linear PDEs we fully characterize this tradeoff with an explicit error decomposition and navigate it during training with spectral derivatives and preconditioning. Across five benchmark PDEs, adding a BWLer on top of an MLP improves RMSE by up to 30x for convection, 10x for reaction, and 1800x for wave equations while remaining compatible with first-order optimizers. Replacing the MLP entirely lets an explicit BWLer reach near-machine-precision on convection, reaction, and wave problems (up to 10 billion times better than prior results) and match the performance of standard PINNs on stiff Burgers' and irregular-geometry Poisson problems. Together, these findings point to a practical path for combining the flexibility of PINNs with the precision of classical spectral solvers.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2025.
Builds on
13 of 37 references.
References · 13
- 2021Convex optimizationcited by 2,515
- 2021Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networkscited by 643
- 2019PyHessian: Neural Networks Through the Lens of the Hessiancited by 292
- 2017Machine Learning of Linear Differential Equations using Gaussian Processescited by 140
- 2020Estimates on the generalization error of Physics Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) for approximating PDEscited by 116
- 2024Weak baselines and reporting biases lead to overoptimism in machine learning for fluid-related partial differential equationscited by 91
- 2023PINNacle: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Solving PDEscited by 87
- 2023Multi-stage Neural Networks: Function Approximator of Machine Precisioncited by 48
- 2022Implicit Neural Spatial Representations for Time-dependent PDEscited by 35
- 2020Data-Driven Aerospace Engineering: Reframing the Industry with Machine Learningcited by 27
- 2023Randomized Sparse Neural Galerkin Schemes for Solving Evolution Equations with Deep Networkscited by 18
- 2022Precision Machine Learningcited by 14
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026PINNs Failure Modes are Overfittingcited by 0
- 2026PINNs Failure Modes are Overfitting29 May 2026