Skip to content

Physics-Informed Neural Plasticity: PDE Solvers That Reshape Themselves

Oct 2026 · 0 citations · 27 references
Computer Science Mathematics

Abstract

Physics-informed neural PDE solvers adapt their parameters to satisfy governing equations, yet their representational structure typically remains fixed throughout training. This rigidity is poorly matched to PDE solutions with strongly heterogeneous complexity across space and space--time, leaving capacity insufficient where the physics is difficult and redundant where it is simple. We introduce physics-informed neural plasticity, a paradigm in which the representation itself reshapes during optimization in response to unresolved physics. We instantiate this principle with Representation Capacity Adaptation for PDEs (ReCAP), a Gaussian-localized solver that dynamically redistributes capacity through local enrichment, residual-directed splitting, gate-based pruning, and function-aware merging. ReCAP uses responsibility-weighted error indicators and the geometry of residual energy to determine where and how to refine. To limit the disturbance introduced by splitting, we introduce quiet-child refinement, which initializes new components by transporting the parent representation while controlling instantaneous functional perturbation. We further establish conditional a posteriori reliability and structural-stability guarantees linking localized physics residuals to solution error and stable refinement. Across five challenging 3D and 4D PDE benchmarks against 11 physics-informed solvers, ReCAP achieves the lowest relative $L^2$ error on every problem, reducing error by $10.7\%$--$27.5\%$ relative to the strongest competing result. These results suggest that physics-informed solvers need not merely learn their parameters---they can learn how their representational capacity should be organized.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.

Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...

Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al. · 302 citations · ⚡60

KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization

This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff et al. · 195 citations · ⚡28
#machine learning Review Open access Jun 2014

Why Early-Stage Software Startups Fail: A Behavioral Framework

This state-of-practice investigation was performed using a literature review followed by a multiple-case study approach and presents how inconsistency between managerial strategies and execution can lead to failure by means of a behavioral framework.

Carmine Giardino, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson · 175 citations · ⚡19

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.