Stories with Tag Partial Differential Equations

• The three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture, after Wang and Zahl

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-27 16:53:56

  Verbose tl;dr

  Terry Tao's blog post discusses the recent proof of the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture by Hong Wang and Joshua Zahl. The conjecture states that any subset of three-dimensional space containing a unit line segment in every direction must have Hausdorff dimension three. While previous work, including Tao's own, established lower bounds approaching three, Wang and Zahl definitively settled the conjecture. Their proof utilizes a refined multiscale analysis of the Kakeya set and leverages polynomial partitioning techniques, building upon earlier advances in incidence geometry. The post highlights the key ideas of the proof, emphasizing the clever combination of existing tools and innovative new arguments, while also acknowledging the remaining open questions in higher dimensions.

  Terence Tao's blog post, "The three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture, after Wang and Zahl," meticulously dissects the recent groundbreaking work of Hong Wang and Joshua Zahl, who have established a near-optimal bound for the dimension of Kakeya sets in three dimensions. The Kakeya conjecture, a long-standing problem in harmonic analysis with connections to numerous other mathematical fields, asserts that Kakeya sets, subsets of Euclidean space containing a unit line segment in every direction, must have full Hausdorff dimension. While the conjecture remains open in higher dimensions, Wang and Zahl's work represents a monumental leap forward in three dimensions, significantly improving upon previous estimates.

  Tao begins by meticulously defining the Kakeya conjecture and elucidating its significance, emphasizing its intricate relationship with problems in areas such as number theory, partial differential equations, and additive combinatorics. He highlights the historical context, outlining the incremental progress made over the years in attacking this challenging problem, and situates Wang and Zahl's achievement within this historical narrative. He explains how their work builds upon and refines earlier techniques, especially those related to the multilinear Kakeya inequality.

  The core of the post then delves into the technical intricacies of Wang and Zahl's proof. Tao painstakingly unpacks their innovative approach, which leverages a sophisticated interplay between geometric and combinatorial arguments. He elucidates their crucial use of the polynomial method, a powerful tool in incidence geometry, to control the interactions between tubes, the fundamental building blocks of Kakeya sets. He carefully explains how Wang and Zahl cleverly adapt and refine this method to the specific challenges posed by the three-dimensional Kakeya problem. Tao further details how they address the crucial issue of "stickiness," a phenomenon related to the potential overlap of tubes, by introducing a novel "graininess" parameter. This parameter allows them to more precisely quantify the interactions between tubes and thereby obtain sharper estimates.

  Furthermore, Tao elaborates on the concept of "bush" arguments, a key ingredient in previous approaches to the Kakeya problem. He explains how Wang and Zahl utilize a refined version of these arguments, incorporating their insights on stickiness and graininess to achieve a significant improvement in bounding the dimension of Kakeya sets. He emphasizes the delicate balance and intricate interplay between the various components of their proof.

  Finally, Tao concludes with a discussion of the remaining challenges in fully resolving the Kakeya conjecture, particularly in higher dimensions. He speculates on potential avenues for future research, suggesting that the techniques developed by Wang and Zahl could potentially be adapted and extended to higher-dimensional settings, offering a glimmer of hope for further progress on this long-standing open problem. He also highlights the broader implications of their work, underscoring its potential impact on other related problems in harmonic analysis and beyond.

  • mathematics
  • Kakeya Conjecture
  • Three-Dimensional Kakeya Conjecture
  • Harmonic Analysis
  • Geometric Measure Theory
  • number theory
  • Partial Differential Equations
  • Wang
  • Zahl
  • Terence Tao
  • Blog Post

  Summary of Comments ( 1 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43196110

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters discuss the implications of the recent proof of the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture, praising its elegance and accessibility even to non-experts. Several highlight the significance of "polynomial partitioning," the technique central to the proof, and its potential applications in other areas of mathematics. Some express excitement about the possibility of tackling higher dimensions, while others acknowledge the significant jump in complexity this would entail. The clear exposition of the proof by Tao is also commended, making the complex subject matter understandable to a broader audience. The connection to the original Kakeya needle problem and its surprising implications for analysis are also noted.

  The Hacker News post discussing Terry Tao's blog entry on the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture has a modest number of comments, mostly focusing on the difficulty of the problem and the implications of the recent progress.

  One commenter highlights the significant challenge posed by the Kakeya conjecture, even in three dimensions, pointing out that while the problem might sound simple to a layperson, it has stumped mathematicians for decades. They express excitement at the new developments and the potential for further breakthroughs.

  Another comment emphasizes the intricate nature of the proof by Wang and Zahl, mentioning its length and complexity. They link this to the broader trend of increasingly complex proofs in advanced mathematics and the challenges this presents for verifying and understanding them. This comment also touches upon the use of computers in checking mathematical proofs, raising questions about the future role of computational tools in mathematical research.

  A further comment delves into the specifics of the Kakeya conjecture, explaining the concept of a "Besicovitch set" – a set containing a unit line segment in every direction but having arbitrarily small area. This comment helps to illustrate the counterintuitive nature of the problem and the difficulty in visualizing these sets.

  Another commenter draws a connection between the Kakeya conjecture and other open problems in mathematics, such as the Erdős distinct distances problem. They suggest that progress in one area can often lead to insights in seemingly unrelated fields, highlighting the interconnectedness of mathematical concepts.

  Finally, one comment focuses on Terry Tao's blog itself, praising its accessibility and ability to explain complex mathematical ideas to a broader audience. They appreciate Tao's efforts to break down difficult concepts into more digestible pieces, making the topic more approachable for non-experts.

  In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a general appreciation for the difficulty of the Kakeya conjecture, an excitement about the recent progress made by Wang and Zahl, and an interest in the broader implications for mathematics. They also highlight the value of clear explanations and the role of online platforms like Terry Tao's blog in disseminating complex mathematical ideas.

• Physics Informed Neural Networks

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-16 21:14:22

  Verbose tl;dr

  Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) incorporate physical laws, expressed as partial differential equations (PDEs), directly into the neural network's loss function. This allows the network to learn solutions to PDEs while respecting the underlying physics. By adding a physics-informed term to the traditional data-driven loss, PINNs can solve PDEs even with sparse or noisy data. This approach, leveraging automatic differentiation to calculate PDE residuals, offers a flexible and robust method for tackling complex scientific and engineering problems, from fluid dynamics to heat transfer, by combining data and physical principles.

  The blog post "Physics Informed Neural Networks" by Nathan Chagnet explores a fascinating intersection between deep learning and physics, specifically how neural networks can be leveraged to solve partial differential equations (PDEs). PDEs are fundamental to describing a vast array of physical phenomena, from fluid dynamics and heat transfer to electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. Traditional numerical methods for solving PDEs can be computationally expensive and challenging, especially for complex geometries and high-dimensional problems. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) offer a potentially powerful alternative by incorporating physical laws directly into the neural network architecture.

  The core idea behind PINNs is to train a neural network to represent the solution to a PDE by minimizing a loss function that not only considers the fit to observed data (if available) but also enforces the PDE itself. This is achieved by constructing the loss function as a weighted sum of multiple terms. One term quantifies the difference between the network's prediction and any available data points, essentially a standard supervised learning component. The other crucial term measures how well the network's output satisfies the PDE. This is calculated by taking automatic derivatives of the network's output with respect to its input variables (e.g., space and time) using automatic differentiation, and then plugging these derivatives into the PDE. If the network perfectly represents the solution, this term will be zero.

  The blog post elucidates this concept through a concrete example of solving the one-dimensional heat equation. The author details how the neural network is set up, how the automatic differentiation is used to calculate the necessary derivatives for the heat equation, and how the loss function is formulated. The post emphasizes the elegance of this approach, where the network isn't just learning a mapping from inputs to outputs based on data, but is also constrained to respect the underlying physics of the problem.

  Furthermore, the post highlights the advantages of PINNs, such as their ability to handle complex geometries and boundary conditions more easily than traditional methods. It also discusses the potential for using PINNs in scenarios with sparse data, where the physics-informed component of the loss function can guide the learning process even in the absence of abundant training examples. The author explains how PINNs can even be used for inverse problems, where the goal is to infer unknown parameters of the PDE itself based on observed data.

  Finally, the blog post touches upon the broader implications of PINNs, suggesting they represent a promising new direction in scientific computing. By seamlessly integrating data and physical laws, PINNs offer a powerful tool for modeling and understanding complex physical systems. The author concludes by expressing enthusiasm for the future development and applications of this exciting field.

  • Physics Informed Neural Networks
  • PINNs
  • neural networks
  • deep learning
  • machine learning
  • Scientific Computing
  • Numerical Methods
  • Differential Equations
  • Partial Differential Equations
  • Computational Physics
  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Scientific Machine Learning

  Summary of Comments ( 4 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43071775

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users discuss the potential and limitations of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs). Several commenters express excitement about PINNs' ability to solve complex differential equations and their potential applications in various scientific fields. Some caution that PINNs are not a silver bullet and face challenges such as difficulty in training, susceptibility to noise, and limitations in handling discontinuities. The discussion also touches upon alternative methods like finite element analysis and spectral methods, comparing their strengths and weaknesses to PINNs. One commenter highlights the need for more research in architecture search and hyperparameter tuning for PINNs, while another points out the importance of understanding the underlying physics to effectively use them. Several comments link to related resources and papers for further exploration of the topic.

  The Hacker News post titled "Physics Informed Neural Networks," linking to an article explaining the concept, generated a moderate amount of discussion with several insightful comments.

  One commenter highlights a key advantage of PINNs: their ability to solve differential equations even with sparse data. They point out that traditional methods often struggle with limited data, whereas PINNs, by incorporating physical laws into the neural network architecture, can effectively extrapolate and generalize from limited observations. This comment emphasizes the potential of PINNs to tackle real-world problems where obtaining comprehensive data is challenging or expensive.

  Another comment emphasizes the importance of the loss function in PINNs. It explains how the loss function balances the network's adherence to the observed data and its conformity to the underlying physical laws. This balancing act, the commenter notes, is crucial for the success of PINNs and requires careful tuning to achieve optimal results. They also delve into how different weightings within the loss function can lead to different outcomes, highlighting the complexity and nuance involved in designing effective PINNs.

  One commenter brings up the challenge of incorporating complex physical laws into the neural network. While simple differential equations are relatively straightforward to embed, more intricate equations, especially those involving nonlinearities and complex boundary conditions, pose a significant hurdle. This comment underscores the ongoing research and development needed to extend the applicability of PINNs to a broader range of physical phenomena.

  Another discussion thread focuses on the computational cost of PINNs. While acknowledging their potential, commenters point out that training PINNs can be computationally intensive, especially for complex problems. This computational burden can limit the scalability of PINNs and hinder their application to large-scale simulations. The discussion also touches upon potential optimization strategies and hardware advancements that could mitigate these computational challenges.

  Finally, a comment raises the issue of interpretability. While PINNs can provide accurate solutions, understanding why a particular solution was reached can be difficult. The black-box nature of neural networks makes it challenging to extract insights into the underlying physical processes. This lack of interpretability can be a drawback in scientific applications where understanding the underlying mechanisms is paramount. The commenter suggests that further research into explainable AI techniques could address this limitation.

• How to solve computational science problems with AI: PINNs

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-20 15:26:30

  Verbose tl;dr

  Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) offer a novel approach to solving complex scientific problems by incorporating physical laws directly into the neural network's training process. Instead of relying solely on data, PINNs use automatic differentiation to embed governing equations (like PDEs) into the loss function. This allows the network to learn solutions that are not only accurate but also physically consistent, even with limited or noisy data. By minimizing the residual of these equations alongside data mismatch, PINNs can solve forward, inverse, and data assimilation problems across various scientific domains, offering a potentially more efficient and robust alternative to traditional numerical methods.

  The blog post "How to solve computational science problems with AI: PINNs" by Mert Kavi explores the application of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) to tackle complex problems in computational science, offering a potentially revolutionary alternative to traditional numerical methods. The author begins by highlighting the inherent challenges in traditional approaches, such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Finite Difference Methods (FDM), which can be computationally expensive and struggle with high-dimensional problems or complex geometries. These methods often require meticulous mesh generation and can become unwieldy as the complexity of the problem increases.

  PINNs, as the post explains, provide a compelling alternative by leveraging the power of neural networks to approximate solutions to partial differential equations (PDEs). Instead of discretizing the domain like traditional methods, PINNs use automatic differentiation to embed the underlying physics of the problem, represented by the PDE, directly into the loss function of the neural network. This is achieved by constructing a loss function that not only minimizes the difference between the predicted solution and any available data points (if applicable) but also penalizes deviations from the governing PDE and its boundary conditions.

  The post elucidates the process of training a PINN. It explains that the network takes the spatial and temporal coordinates as input and outputs the solution variables, such as temperature or velocity. The loss function, a crucial element of the PINN architecture, comprises several terms. The data term, present when experimental or simulated data is available, minimizes the error between the network's prediction and the known data. The physics term, derived from the PDE, penalizes any violation of the governing physical laws. Similarly, the boundary condition term ensures that the network's output respects the prescribed boundary conditions. By minimizing this composite loss function, the neural network learns to approximate a solution that satisfies both the data and the underlying physics.

  The post further details the advantages of using PINNs. It emphasizes their mesh-free nature, eliminating the laborious and often error-prone process of mesh generation required by traditional methods. This characteristic makes PINNs particularly appealing for problems with complex geometries. Additionally, the post highlights the potential of PINNs to handle inverse problems, where the goal is to infer unknown parameters of the PDE from observed data. This capability offers exciting possibilities in various scientific disciplines.

  Finally, the post provides a concrete example of using PINNs to solve the one-dimensional heat equation, walking the reader through the Python implementation using the TensorFlow library. This practical example demonstrates how to define the neural network, construct the loss function with its various components, and train the network to approximate the temperature distribution over time. This hands-on approach allows readers to grasp the core concepts and implementation details of PINNs, fostering a deeper understanding of their potential and applicability in diverse scientific and engineering domains. The concluding remarks reiterate the promise of PINNs as a powerful tool for solving complex computational problems, particularly highlighting their ability to handle complex geometries, inverse problems, and high-dimensional scenarios.

  • Computational Science
  • AI
  • artificial intelligence
  • PINNs
  • Physics-Informed Neural Networks
  • neural networks
  • deep learning
  • machine learning
  • Scientific Computing
  • Numerical Methods
  • Differential Equations
  • Partial Differential Equations
  • PDEs
  • Simulation
  • Modeling
  • Scientific Machine Learning
  • AI for Science

  Summary of Comments ( 15 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42769623

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the potential and limitations of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs). Some expressed excitement about PINNs' ability to solve complex differential equations, particularly in fluid dynamics, and their potential to bypass traditional meshing challenges. However, others raised concerns about PINNs' computational cost for high-dimensional problems and questioned their generalizability. The discussion also touched upon the "black box" nature of neural networks and the need for careful consideration of boundary conditions and loss function selection. Several commenters shared resources and alternative approaches, including traditional numerical methods and other machine learning techniques. Overall, the comments reflected both optimism and cautious pragmatism regarding the application of PINNs in computational science.

  The Hacker News post titled "How to solve computational science problems with AI: PINNs" (linking to an article about Physics-Informed Neural Networks) generated a modest discussion with a few noteworthy comments.

  Several users pointed out the limitations and challenges associated with PINNs. One commenter highlighted the computational expense of training PINNs, mentioning that while they can be faster than traditional methods for some problems, the training process itself can be resource-intensive. They also emphasized that PINNs are not a universal solution and are best suited for specific types of problems. Another commenter echoed this sentiment, noting that the effectiveness of PINNs depends heavily on the specific problem and the architecture of the neural network. They added that finding the right architecture can often require significant experimentation and expertise.

  Another point raised was the issue of generalizability. One user questioned how well PINNs generalize to unseen data, particularly when dealing with complex physical phenomena. They suggested that traditional methods might offer better guarantees in this regard.

  There was some discussion about the practical applications of PINNs. One commenter mentioned their potential in areas like fluid dynamics and material science, while another expressed skepticism about their widespread adoption due to the aforementioned challenges.

  Finally, one user mentioned the importance of understanding the underlying physics when using PINNs. They argued that blindly applying PINNs without a solid grasp of the physical principles involved can lead to inaccurate or meaningless results. This reinforces the idea that PINNs are a tool that requires careful consideration and expertise to be used effectively.

  While the discussion wasn't extensive, it provided a balanced perspective on the potential and limitations of PINNs, highlighting both the excitement surrounding their application and the practical challenges that need to be addressed.