Weak Random Feature Method for Solving Partial Differential Equations

Jingrun Chen; Mikhail Kuvakin; Zijian Mei

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Weak Random Feature Method for Solving Partial Differential Equations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that reformulating the random feature method around the weak form of a PDE yields a mesh-free solver that computes approximate weak solutions of low-regularity problems from a single least-squares system, with accuracy…

desk verdict Weak RFM is a plausible, fast linear-solve extension of random feature methods to weak solutions, but the test-function density argument is unproven and one benchmark's exact solution is not actually a weak solution. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00508 v1 pith:2HJZ75H4 submitted 2025-05-01 math.NA cs.NA

Mikhail Kuvakin , Zijian Mei , Jingrun Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3565M7035D3068T07

keywords partialdifferentialequationsweaksolutionsrandomfeaturemethodleastsquarestestfunctionspartitionofunityphysics-informedneuralnetworksadversarial

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes Weak Random Feature Method (WRFM), a mesh-free numerical solver aimed at linear PDEs whose data or boundary conditions are too rough to admit classical solutions. It claims that replacing the strong PDE residual with integrals against a finite set of sine test functions, supported by window functions, turns the weak problem into one least-squares linear system. On benchmark problems in 2D and 3D with nonsmooth or discontinuous data, WRFM reportedly matches or beats weak-adversarial-network and physics-informed baselines in accuracy while using fewer parameters and much less compute. If the claim holds, WRFM gives a simple non-iterative route to approximate weak solutions, the class needed for many fluid and material models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weak-form linear system of Eq. (8). Its first block has entries $\int_{\Omega_n} \phi_j(x)\, \mathcal{L}^*\varphi_i^n(x)\,dx$ with $\mathcal{L}^*$ the formal adjoint of the PDE operator; the second block pins boundary values at block endpoints; the third block enforces $C^0$ continuity between neighboring blocks. The test functions are windowed sine products, $\varphi_i^n = w_{[x_0^n,x_1^n]}\sin\!\big(\pi i(x-x_0^n)/(x_1^n-x_0^n)\big)$ in 1D with tensor-product analogues in higher dimensions. The window truncates support to the block; the sinusoids supply the density argument that a finite set of test functions approximates the full space $D(\Omega)$. This construction is what removes derivative requirements on $u$ and eliminates the inter-block differentiability conditions present in standard RFM.

What would settle it

Take the 2D Helmholtz problem of Section 4.2 with the optimal hyperparameters, then double $K_x,K_y$ while holding $J,S$ fixed and measure the $L^2$ error against the exact weak solution. If the error plateaus and stops shrinking while the finite-set residual is small, the finite test-function set is not capturing the full weak problem; alternatively, evaluating the residual against a test function with frequency outside the chosen set and large amplitude should reveal whether the weak form holds beyond the finite set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the random feature method can be extended from strong solutions to weak solutions by swapping the pointwise equation $Lu=f$ for the adjoint-form identities $\int_\Omega u\, L^*\varphi\,dx = \int_\Omega f\,\varphi\,dx$ and the corresponding boundary identities. The solution is still a partition-of-unity sum of random features $\sigma(k_m\cdot x+b_m)$; the new ingredient is the test-function set $\varphi_k = w_{[x_0,x_1]}\sin\!\big(\pi k(x-x_0)/(x_1-x_0)\big)$ (and tensor products in 2D/3D), which by Weierstrass approximation the authors take to span all compactly supported test functions. The coefficients solve the linear system (8) whose interior block is the Gram-like matrix of $\int_{\Omega_n}\phi_j\, L^*\varphi_i\,dx$. The method enforces boundary values and interface continuity but, unlike strong RFM, imposes no differentiability across subdomains, which is exactly why it tolerates nonsmooth solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that satisfying the weak equation on a finite list of chosen sine-shaped test functions is enough to force the computed function close to the real weak solution; the paper justifies this by approximation but does not quantify how many test functions are needed or bound the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Approximate weak solutions to linear PDEs with nonsmooth boundary data or right-hand sides can be computed by one linear solve, with no iterative network training.
For the tested 2D Helmholtz, 2D static heat, 3D Poisson, and 3D heat problems, WRFM reaches accuracy comparable to or better than PINN and WAN with far fewer parameters and, in 2D, roughly an order-of-magnitude speedup on CPU only.
Because the system imposes no cross-block differentiability, the method localizes nonsmooth features better than strong-form solvers and does not smear kinks as much.
The number of test functions is a tensor product in dimension, so current WRFM scalability in 3D is limited by the size of the linear system; the authors identify this as the main current limitation.
Accuracy depends mainly on the product $M=JS$ (features per block times number of blocks), with a broad plateau of good values, so hyperparameters are reportedly easy to choose.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If a rigorous error bound were added linking the finite-set test residual to the true weak-form residual, WRFM would become a provably convergent mesh-free weak solver; the paper supplies only a Weierstrass density argument, so convergence rates are an open question.
The same windowed-sine test-function ansatz could be applied to nonlinear PDEs by minimizing the weak residual, though the coefficients would then come from a nonlinear least-squares problem rather than a single linear solve.
The adversarial idea used in WAN could be imported here as the authors suggest: generate test functions adaptively rather than by tensor product, which might remove the exponential growth in dimension.
Replacing the window with smoother or adaptive partitions could improve accuracy for discontinuous solutions; the current experiments show errors concentrated along discontinuity lines, so window placement is likely a leverage point.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

What you should know: this paper extends the random feature method (RFM) to weak solutions by building a least-squares system from integrated-by-parts adjoint tests and Fourier test functions. When the pieces work, it is genuinely faster and uses far fewer parameters than PINN/WAN on the 2D and 3D examples shown. The Helmholtz and Poisson results are suggestive. Credit where due: the authors do not tune coefficients to match reference solutions; the coefficients come from solving a linear system, so the comparison is not circular. The paper is a natural extension rather than a leap, but it is not a copy of prior work.

The soft spots are real. The theoretical justification has a load-bearing gap. They assert that a finite set of sinusoidal test functions multiplied by an undefined window function w[x0,x1] suffices to certify a weak solution. Uniform convergence by Weierstrass does not control convergence of Lφ_k to Lφ, because L contains derivatives. Without density in the graph norm of L, the finite row-block A1 does not control the true weak residual. The window function is never defined, so the claim is not checkable. Also missing: a trace argument for pointwise boundary conditions in a weak formulation, and a statement of well-posedness.

Worse: the 'exact solution' for the 2D static heat problem (10) is not a weak solution of the stated equation. It is discontinuous across y=x and y=1-x, so its distributional Laplacian carries surface delta terms that cannot equal the bounded function 9·sgn(...), and it does not satisfy the stated zero boundary data on the inner square. That benchmark should be removed or corrected.

The paper also never runs standard RFM as a baseline, despite the method being an extension of it, and ships no code or data. Both are omissions that weaken the empirical claims.

Who is this for: researchers using RFM or kernel/random-feature methods for PDEs, and anyone wanting a cheap linear-algebra alternative to PINN/WAN on low-regularity problems. The core idea may be salvageable, but as submitted the central claim is not supported. I would send it to peer review anyway—the method is novel enough and the experiments are detailed enough to warrant a serious referee, with a request for major revision. If the authors fix the density argument, define the window, correct the benchmark, and add an RFM baseline, the paper could become a solid contribution.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Weak Random Feature Method (WRFM), a mesh-free least-squares solver for linear PDEs in weak form. The solution is represented as a partition-of-unity combination of random feature functions, and the discrete equations are assembled from finitely many sinusoidal test functions multiplied by an unspecified window function, together with pointwise boundary and interface conditions. The method is tested on 2D Helmholtz, 2D static heat, 3D Poisson, and 3D heat problems and compared with PINN and weak adversarial networks (WAN). The central claims are that WRFM enforces the weak form by construction and achieves comparable or better accuracy with significantly fewer parameters and less computation time, all on CPU.

Significance. If the theoretical gap were closed, WRFM would be an interesting contribution: it is mesh-free, requires no iterative neural-network training, and solves a linear least-squares system, potentially offering an efficient alternative to PINN and WAN for problems with low-regularity data. The paper also makes a useful comparison with existing machine-learning PDE solvers and includes a sensitivity study for the main hyperparameters. However, the manuscript is not yet reliable: the finite-test-function justification is incomplete, and several benchmark reference solutions are not weak solutions of the displayed equations because distributional delta terms are omitted. No code or reproducibility artifacts are provided, which further weakens the empirical claims.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] The window function w_[x0,x1] is never defined, so the claimed representation of D(R) test functions is not checkable. More importantly, the Weierstrass approximation argument is insufficient: uniform approximation of a continuous test function by sine series does not imply convergence of Lφ_k to Lφ, since L contains derivatives of φ through the adjoint operator. No error estimate is given relating the finite-test-set residual entering Eq. (8) to the true weak-form residual sup_{φ∈D} |∫_Ω (u Lφ - f φ)|. Without density in the graph norm of L, or an explicit residual bound, a function with small finite-test residual need not be a weak solution. The claim that the computed solution 'satisfies the weak form by default' is therefore unsupported.
[Sections 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, Eqs. (9), (11), (12)] The reference functions used in several benchmarks are not weak solutions of the stated equations in the sense of Eq. (5). For Eq. (9), u_e = sinh(|x|) cos(y²) has a jump of 2 cos(y²) in ∂_x u at x = 0, so Δu_e + u_e equals the displayed RHS plus 2 cos(y²)δ(x). For Eq. (11), the boundary-data function (x - I[x-1/2])² sin(y)e^{-z} has a derivative jump across the internal plane x = 1/2, producing a δ(x-1/2) term in its Laplacian. For Eq. (12), delta terms appear along x = 0 and y = 0. In each case the stated smooth RHS lacks these distributions, so the experiments do not actually test approximation of a weak solution of the displayed problem.
[Section 4.3, Eq. (10)] The displayed 'weak solution' for the static heat equation is discontinuous along y = x and x + y = 1; for example, at (0.8, 0.8) the one-sided limits are approximately +0.31 and -0.31. Its distribution Laplacian therefore contains line Dirac terms that are not present in the RHS 9 sgn((x-y)(y+x-1)), so it does not satisfy the weak form of Eq. (10). The reported L∞ errors around 0.8-1.2 are dominated by smearing these discontinuities, and the claim that PINN and WRFM 'successfully solve' the problem is not supported by comparison with an invalid reference solution.
[Sections 3.2 and 4.1] Boundary and interface conditions are imposed as pointwise equalities at subdomain endpoints or along axis partitions, but no trace argument or quadrature error analysis connects these discrete conditions to the weak boundary integral in Eq. (5). No convergence study in the number of test functions K or in quadrature order is reported; Section 4.6 only varies the number of subdomains S and feature functions J. The paper therefore does not establish that increasing the discrete test set drives the weak-form residual to zero.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.2] The symbol I is called the 'signal function'; it should be called the indicator function, and the term should be defined consistently.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] The symbol φ^c_[x0,x1] is used but never defined; the compactly supported window used in numerical examples needs an explicit formula or reference.
[Tables 1-5] The paper states that each experiment is repeated three times and averages are reported, but no standard deviations are given in Tables 1-5; the sensitivity study in Section 4.6 reports standard deviations only for the Helmholtz example.
[Section 4.1] Time comparisons are not fully apples-to-apples: WRFM runs on CPU while PINN and WAN use a GPU, so the reported speed advantages should be interpreted with caution.
[Throughout] Decimal commas (e.g., 0,169) are inconsistent with standard English mathematical notation and should be replaced by decimal points; there are also typographical errors such as 'Poisson‘s equation'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: WRFM coefficients are computed from the weak-form linear system without fitting to reference solutions; the finite-test-function step is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Weak RFM is not circular. The coefficients u_mj are obtained by solving the least-squares linear system (8), whose rows are weak-form integrals (A1, w1), boundary values (A2, w2), and interface continuity conditions (A3, w3). These data come from the PDE, the domain partition, the chosen random features, and a fixed finite family of trigonometric test functions; no coefficient is fitted to the reference solutions used in the accuracy tables. The citations to Chen et al. [15] and other prior RFM papers establish the baseline method and hyperparameter heuristics, but the weak-form reformulation in Section 3 is built directly from the PDE's weak form rather than imported from those citations. The Weierstrass-based reduction from infinitely many test functions to finitely many sinusoidal tests is a mathematical justification, not a circular one; even if the density argument is incomplete because uniform approximation does not control the adjoint derivatives appearing in Lφ, that is an unproven correctness step, not an input secretly redefined as the output. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked from the authors' prior work to force the choice of test functions. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar of quoting a specific equation or parameter that reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central derivation rests on the Weierstrass-based reduction to a finite Fourier test set (an unproved Galerkin sufficiency assumption), the existence of an unspecified window function, and pointwise boundary enforcement for weak solutions. The free parameters are all hyperparameters of the algorithm; none are fitted to the reference solutions, so there is no parameter-fitting circularity in the benchmarks.

free parameters (5)

S (number of subdomains) = 4, 3, 1, 2, 2 for the five benchmark problems (Table 6)
Chosen per problem to balance accuracy and cost; the paper's own sensitivity analysis (Section 4.6) identifies S as one of two most sensitive hyperparameters.
Jn (random feature functions per subdomain) = 40, 100, 500, 100, 200 across benchmarks (Table 6)
Chosen by hand to optimize accuracy; the second most sensitive hyperparameter according to Section 4.6.
Kn (number of test functions per subdomain) = Kx*Ky*Kz in Table 6, e.g., 25x25, 25x15, 50x50, 15x15x15
The weak-form test set size is set per problem; the paper provides no criterion for choosing it and notes exponential growth with dimension increases system size.
Px, Py, Pz (boundary condition partitions) = listed in Table 6, e.g., 50x100, 25x50x50
Boundary points are chosen per axis; no rule is given for their selection.
Random feature parameter range R and activation sigma = Not reported in the paper
The random weights km and biases bm are drawn uniformly in [-R,R] but R is never specified, and the choice of activation is not stated for the experiments.

assumptions (5)

standard math Weierstrass approximation theorem: any continuous function on a closed interval can be uniformly approximated by trigonometric polynomials (cited [24]).
Used in Section 3.1 to justify replacing the infinite set of weak-form test functions by a finite set of sinusoids. The theorem is standard, but its application to compactly supported D(R) test functions is not fully justified.
domain assumption The weak solution of each benchmark problem exists and is unique in the relevant Sobolev space.
The paper never states the function space for the weak solutions, nor proves existence or uniqueness for Eqs. (9)-(12). The numerical comparisons implicitly assume well-posedness.
domain assumption The random feature trial space with fixed random weights is expressive enough to approximate the weak solution in each subdomain.
The method inherits RFM's approximation assumption; the paper provides no error estimates or convergence proof for WRFM.
domain assumption Boundary conditions can be enforced by pointwise evaluation of the trial function on a finite set of boundary points.
In Section 3.2 the boundary condition is imposed through rows A2 and w2 that evaluate phi(x0) and phi(x1) at the endpoints; for weak solutions such pointwise traces may not be meaningful without trace theorems, and no argument is given.
ad hoc to paper An unnamed window function w[x0,x1] exists with the required support and regularity, and its numerical counterpart is usable in quadrature.
Equations (6) and (7) rely on a window function w that is never defined. The paper says a variant is used in numerical examples but does not specify it, making the method incomplete.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak Random Feature Method for Solving Partial Differential Equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2HJZ75H4

@misc{pith2026250500508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak Random Feature Method for Solving Partial Differential Equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2HJZ75H4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00508}
}

read the original abstract

The random feature method (RFM) has demonstrated great potential in bridging traditional numerical methods and machine learning techniques for solving partial differential equations (PDEs). It retains the advantages of mesh-free approaches while achieving spectral accuracy for smooth solutions, without the need for iterative procedures. However, the implementation of RFM in the identification of weak solutions remains a subject of limited comprehension, despite crucial role of weak solutions in addressing numerous applied problems. While the direct application of RFM to problems without strong solutions is fraught with potential challenges, we propose an enhancement to the original random feature method that is specifically suited for finding weak solutions and is termed as Weak RFM. Essentially, Weak RFM reformulates the original RFM by adopting the weak form of the governing equations and constructing a new linear system through the use of carefully designed test functions, ensuring that the resulting solution satisfies the weak form by default. To rigorously evaluate the performance of the proposed method, we conduct extensive experiments on a variety of benchmark problems, including challenging three-dimensional cases, and compare its performance with state of the art machine learning-based approaches. The results demonstrate that Weak RFM achieves comparable or superior accuracy while significantly reducing computational time and memory consumption, highlighting its potential as a highly efficient and robust tool for finding weak solutions to various PDE problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00508 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Helmholtz equation on regular domain. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Helmholtz equation on complex domain. The considered methods are still capable of providing precise solutions, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The absolute error for static heat equation on complex domain: (a) PINN, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The absolute error for Poisson‘s equations of the two most accurate methods: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The absolute error for Heat equation of the two most accurate methods: (a) PINN, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Dependence of accuracy on the number of basis functions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Dependence of accuracy on the number of domains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Chandrasekhar, An Introduction To The Study Of Stellar Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1939

S. Chandrasekhar, An Introduction To The Study Of Stellar Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1939

work page 1939
[2]

Zhabotinsky, Concentration Self-oscillations, Nauka, Moscow, 1974

A. Zhabotinsky, Concentration Self-oscillations, Nauka, Moscow, 1974

work page 1974
[3]

H. W. Hethcote, The Mathematics of Infectious Diseases, SIAM Review 42 (2000) 599–653

work page 2000
[4]

Black, M

F. Black, M. Scholes, The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy 81 (1973) 637–654

work page 1973
[5]

Maslov, M

V. Maslov, M. Fedoriuk, Semi-classical approximation in quantum mechan- ics, Nauka, Moscow, 1976

work page 1976
[6]

H. Lee, I. S. Kang, Neural algorithm for solving differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 91 (1990) 110–131

1990
[7]

Meade, A

A. Meade, A. Fernandez, The numerical solution of linear ordinary differen- tial equations by feedforward neural networks, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19 (1994) 1–25

work page 1994
[8]

Lagaris, A

I. Lagaris, A. Likas, D. Fotiadis, Artificial neural networks for solving ordi- nary and partial differential equations, IEEE Transactions on Neural Net- works 9 (1998) 987–1000. 22

work page 1998

Show all 25 references

[9]

W. Ee, B. Yu, The Deep Ritz Method: A Deep Learning-Based Numerical Algorithm for Solving Variational Problems, Communications in Mathe- matics and Statistics 6 (2017) 1–12

2017
[10]

Sirignano, K

J. Sirignano, K. Spiliopoulos, DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 375 (2017) 1339–1364

2017
[11]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems in- volving nonlinear partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 378 (2019) 686–707

2019
[12]

Bischof, M

R. Bischof, M. A. Kraus, Multi-Objective Loss Balancing for Physics- Informed Deep Learning, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 439 (2025) 117914

2025
[13]

X. Chen, C. Gong, Q. Wan, L. Deng, Y. Wan, Y. Liu, B. Chen, J. Liu, Transfer learning for deep neural network-based partial differential equa- tions solving, Advances in Aeronautics 3 (2021) 36–36

2021
[14]

Rathore, W

P. Rathore, W. Lei, Z. Frangella, L. Lu, M. Udell, Challenges in Training PINNs: A loss Landscape Perspective (2024). arXiv:2402.01868

2024 arXiv
[15]

J. Chen, X. Chi, W. Ee, Z. Yang, Bridging Traditional and Machine Learning-Based Algorithms for Solving PDEs: The Random Feature Method, Journal of Machine Learning 1 (2022) 268–298

2022
[16]

J. Chen, W. E, Y. Luo, The Random Feature Method for Time-Dependent Problems, East Asian Journal on Applied Mathematics 13 (2023) 435–463

2023
[17]

X. Chi, J. Chen, Z. Yang, The random feature method for solving interface problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 420 (2024) 116–719

2024
[18]

Z. Mei, H. Xie, H. Yong, Z. Yang, J. Chen, Solving Diffusion Problems by a Random Feature Method, East Asian Journal on Applied Mathematics 1 (2024) 1–20

2024
[19]

J. Chen, L. Tan, High-precision randomized iterative methods for the ran- dom feature method (2024). arXiv:2409.15818

2024 arXiv
[20]

J. Chen, W. Ee, Y. Sun, Optimization of Random Feature Method in the High-Precision Regime, Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation 6 (2024) 1490–1517

2024
[21]

Kawashima, S

S. Kawashima, S. Nishibata, Cauchy problem for a model system of the radiating gas: weak solutions with a jump and classical solutions, Mathe- matical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 9 (1999) 69–91. 23

1999
[22]

P. R. Spalart, Numerical simulation of boundary layers, NASA Technical Memorandum 88222 (1986) 10–91

1986
[23]

Lundmark, Formation and dynamics of shock waves in the Degasperis- Procesi equation, Journal of Nonlinear Science 17 (2007) 169–198

H. Lundmark, Formation and dynamics of shock waves in the Degasperis- Procesi equation, Journal of Nonlinear Science 17 (2007) 169–198

2007
[24]

Weierstrass, ¨Uber die analytische Darstellbarkeit sogenannter willk¨ urlicher Functionen einer reellen Ver¨ anderlichen, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie zu Berlin 1 (1885) 633–639

K. Weierstrass, ¨Uber die analytische Darstellbarkeit sogenannter willk¨ urlicher Functionen einer reellen Ver¨ anderlichen, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie zu Berlin 1 (1885) 633–639
[25]

Y. Zang, G. Bao, X. Ye, H. Zhou, Weak adversarial networks for high-dimensional partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 411 (2020) 109–409. 24

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Chandrasekhar, An Introduction To The Study Of Stellar Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1939

S. Chandrasekhar, An Introduction To The Study Of Stellar Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1939

work page 1939

[2] [2]

Zhabotinsky, Concentration Self-oscillations, Nauka, Moscow, 1974

A. Zhabotinsky, Concentration Self-oscillations, Nauka, Moscow, 1974

work page 1974

[3] [3]

H. W. Hethcote, The Mathematics of Infectious Diseases, SIAM Review 42 (2000) 599–653

work page 2000

[4] [4]

Black, M

F. Black, M. Scholes, The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy 81 (1973) 637–654

work page 1973

[5] [5]

Maslov, M

V. Maslov, M. Fedoriuk, Semi-classical approximation in quantum mechan- ics, Nauka, Moscow, 1976

work page 1976

[6] [6]

H. Lee, I. S. Kang, Neural algorithm for solving differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 91 (1990) 110–131

1990

[7] [7]

Meade, A

A. Meade, A. Fernandez, The numerical solution of linear ordinary differen- tial equations by feedforward neural networks, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19 (1994) 1–25

work page 1994

[8] [8]

Lagaris, A

I. Lagaris, A. Likas, D. Fotiadis, Artificial neural networks for solving ordi- nary and partial differential equations, IEEE Transactions on Neural Net- works 9 (1998) 987–1000. 22

work page 1998