MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936334504 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.07200

A Discussion on Solving Partial Differential Equations using Neural Networks

2019· preprint· en· W2936334504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkPartial differential equationInitializationComputer scienceApplied mathematicsFunction (biology)MathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can neural networks learn to solve partial differential equations (PDEs)? We investigate this question for two (systems of) PDEs, namely, the Poisson equation and the steady Navier--Stokes equations. The contributions of this paper are five-fold. (1) Numerical experiments show that small neural networks (< 500 learnable parameters) are able to accurately learn complex solutions for systems of partial differential equations. (2) It investigates the influence of random weight initialization on the quality of the neural network approximate solution and demonstrates how one can take advantage of this non-determinism using ensemble learning. (3) It investigates the suitability of the loss function used in this work. (4) It studies the benefits and drawbacks of solving (systems of) PDEs with neural networks compared to classical numerical methods. (5) It proposes an exhaustive list of possible directions of future work.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it