Physics-informed neural network Lyapunov functions: PDE characterization, learning, and verification
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide a systematic investigation of using physics-informed neural networks to compute Lyapunov functions. We encode Lyapunov conditions as a partial differential equation (PDE) and use this for training neural network Lyapunov functions. We analyze the analytical properties of the solutions to the Lyapunov and Zubov PDEs. In particular, we show that employing the Zubov equation in training neural Lyapunov functions can lead to verifiable approximate regions of attraction close to the true domain of attraction. We also examine approximation errors and the convergence of neural approximations to the unique solution of Zubov’s equation. We then provide sufficient conditions for the learned neural Lyapunov functions that can be readily verified by satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solvers, enabling formal verification of both local stability analysis and region-of-attraction estimates in the large. Through a number of nonlinear examples, ranging from low to high dimensions, we demonstrate that the proposed framework can outperform traditional sum-of-squares (SOS) Lyapunov functions obtained using semidefinite programming (SDP).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it