Skip to content

Gradient-Update Mismatch: Rethinking Conflict-Free Training of Physics-Informed Neural Networks

Sep 2026 · 1 citation · 31 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

GUM is widespread across momentum, adaptive, and curvature-based optimizers, with conflict rates reaching up to 86.3%.

Abstract

Training Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) requires jointly optimizing physics residual and initial/boundary condition loss terms, which often induce conflicting gradients. Gradient surgery methods mitigate this issue by constructing directions from loss-specific gradients to reduce conflict before optimizer transformation. However, even when the constructed direction is conflict-free, this property may not be preserved after optimizer transformation. Let $a_t$ denote the direction constructed by gradient surgery, $u_t$ the optimizer proposal, and $\mathcal{C}_t$ the conflict-free cone induced by the loss-specific gradients. We show that modern optimizers can transform $a_t$ through mechanisms such as historical state, adaptive scaling, preconditioning, or decoupled weight decay, so $a_t \in \mathcal{C}_t$ does not generally imply $u_t \in \mathcal{C}_t$. We refer to this optimizer-induced discrepancy in conflict-freeness between $a_t$ and $u_t$ as Gradient-Update Mismatch (GUM). Accordingly, we propose Gradient-Update Alignment (GUA), which projects $u_t$ onto $\mathcal{C}_t$ to obtain the aligned update $p_t$ and applies $p_t$ to the parameters. When the optimizer maintains internal state, GUA further adjusts this state toward targets reconstructed from the applied update. We conduct extensive experiments and find that GUM is widespread across momentum, adaptive, and curvature-based optimizers, with conflict rates reaching up to 86.3%. Across all PINN settings, GUA achieves conflict-free applied updates and consistently improves various gradient surgery methods, reducing the relative $L_2$ error by up to 98.2% in individual settings. Data and code are available at https://github.com/JingXiao10/GUA.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

SS-ESOAP: Self-Scaled Adaptive Preconditioning for Physics-Informed Learning

Method is introduced, which augments SOAP-style preconditioning with a scalar secant-energy correction adapted to Kronecker geometry and an adaptive basis update followed by variance-state downscaling, and is positioned as a scalable option for stiff, high-accuracy physics-informed training, rather than a uniform repla...

Guang-Yuan Wang, Mads Toftrup, Sebastian Loeschcke et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Physics-Constrained Neural Flow Maps for Long-Horizon Prediction of Spin Dynamics

A physics-constrained neural flow map that learns finite-time dynamics directly on the unit sphere that outperforms an adapted Long Short-Term Memory in in-domain accuracy and geometric stability and enables physically admissible long-horizon prediction.

Haoen Feng, Sheng-Lan Yuan, Shi-Rong Lin · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Gradient Surgery for Physics-Informed Neural Networks

PAM-GS is proposed, a physics-aware gradient surgery method that adaptively mitigates task interference during training according to the observed conflict types, and demonstrates that PAM-GS combines competitive solution accuracy with consistently strong task-balanced performance, outperforming existing methods on most...

Thomas Borsani, G. Di Fatta · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

From Trainability Diagnostics to Optimization Claims: Boundaries and Controls in Variational Quantum Optimization

Barren plateau diagnostics characterize whether gradient signal remains available for training, but surviving signal need not translate into successful optimization. We study this trainability--optimization gap at the level of optimizer steps. Treating coefficient-weighted Hamiltonian-term gradients as task-like compon...

Pilsung Kang · 0 citations

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.