arXiv preprint ·

The limits of exactness: On the failure of automatic differentiation in physics-informed machine learning

Ameya D. Jagtap

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Machine Learning

Abstract

Automatic differentiation (AD) lets neural networks compute derivatives of governing equations to machine precision, and this precision has made it the computational backbone of physics-informed machine learning. Yet exactness in the mathematical sense is not the same as fidelity to the physics. Here I argue that a derivative can be numerically perfect and still be the wrong derivative for the problem at hand, because AD, by construction, has no notion of the physical structure a solution must obey. Convection and its associated directionality, diffusion, and dispersion are only the most visible instances of a much longer list that spans all branches of computational science and engineering, including conservation, thermodynamic consistency, symmetry, symplectic structure, positivity, monotonicity, and boundedness. Recognizing this broader gap reframes how the field should build the next generation of PDE-driven neural surrogates.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Machine Learning

Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics