Taming the Loss Landscape of PINNs with Noisy Feynman–Kac Supervision: Operator Preconditioning and Non-Asymptotic Error Bounds
Nathanael Tepakbong, Hanyu HU, Chengyu Liu, Xiang ZHOU
Abstract
Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) often train slowly or fail to converge on challenging partial differential equations (PDEs), a behavior recently linked to severely ill-conditioned loss landscapes inherited from the underlying differential operator. We study PINNs augmented with a pointwise data-fidelity term, added at a few points in the domain to the standard residual and boundary losses. We show that this supervision term acts as an operator-level preconditioner: for suitable weights, our comparison bounds guarantee a substantially smaller condition number than under the standard PINN loss, independently of how the pointwise labels are obtained. For a broad class of PDEs admitting a Feynman-Kac (FK) representation, we generate such labels by Monte Carlo averages of the FK functional, resulting in what we call "FK-PINNs", and using the excess risk decomposition approach, we derive non-asymptotic L 2 (Ω)-error bounds for FK-PINNs with tanh activation trained by finitely many steps of gradient descent. Along the way, we establish pseudo-dimension bounds for first-and second-order derivatives of tanh neural networks, which are of independent interest and, to the best of our knowledge, new. Numerical experiments on Poisson, Schrödinger, mean exit time, and committor problems corroborate the theory, and show that FK-PINNs can successfully solve PDEs for which standard PINNs exhibit severe failure modes. Recent work investigates this issue through an operator-conditioning and loss landscape lens. In particular, De Ryck et al. (2024) analyze gradient descent on PINN objectives and relate the dynamics to the spectrum of the Hermitian square L * L
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext d0a9b37c-22d3-4fe4-afd3-e1e483e1b657Builds on10
- Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networksAditi S. Krishnapriyan, Amir Gholami, Shandian Zhe, Robert M. Kirby et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 1,421 citations
- Challenges in Training PINNs: A Loss Landscape PerspectivePratik Rathore, Weimu Lei, Zachary Frangella, Lu Lu et al.ICML 2024 · 137 citations
- Gradient Alignment in Physics-informed Neural Networks: A Second-Order Optimization PerspectiveSifan Wang, Ananyae Kumar Bhartari, Bowen Li, Paris PerdikarisNeurIPS 2025 · 100 citations
- Machine Learning For Elliptic PDEs: Fast Rate Generalization Bound, Neural Scaling Law and Minimax OptimalityYiping Lu, Haoxuan Chen, Jianfeng Lu, Lexing Ying et al.ICLR 2022 · 54 citations
- On the Optimal Memorization Power of ReLU Neural NetworksGal Vardi, Gilad Yehudai, Ohad ShamirICLR 2022 · 42 citations
Related papers
- An operator preconditioning perspective on training in physics-informed machine learningTim De Ryck, Florent Bonnet, Siddhartha Mishra, Emmanuel de BézenacICLR 2024 · 28 citations
- Generic bounds on the approximation error for physics-informed (and) operator learningTim De Ryck, Siddhartha MishraNeurIPS 2022 · 93 citations
- FP64 is All You Need: Rethinking Failure Modes in Physics-Informed Neural NetworksChenhui Xu, Dancheng Liu, Amir Nassereldine, Jinjun XiongNeurIPS 2025 · 18 citations
- The Challenges of the Nonlinear Regime for Physics-Informed Neural NetworksAndrea Bonfanti, Giuseppe Bruno, Cristina CiprianiNeurIPS 2024 · 41 citations
- Competitive Physics Informed NetworksQi Zeng, Yash Kothari, Spencer H. Bryngelson, Florian SchäferICLR 2023 · 10 citations
