Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

GeoHNNs: Geometric Hamiltonian Neural Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GeoHNN learns reduced-order Hamiltonian dynamics by enforcing both the Riemannian geometry of the inertia matrix and the symplectic geometry of phase space, and reports that these constraints deliver long-term stable, energy-conserving…

desk verdict The SPD inertia parameterization is a keeper, but the symplectic-structure claims for the constrained autoencoder don't follow from the stated constraints; the paper overreaches theoretically and should be revised or re-scoped. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15678 v1 pith:RW325STM submitted 2025-07-21 cs.LG math.DGmath.DSmath.SGstat.ML

Amine Mohamed Aboussalah , Abdessalam Ed-dib This is my paper
classification cs.LGmath.DGmath.DSmath.SGstat.ML MSC 37J5565P1070H0568T07
keywords HamiltonianneuralnetworksmodelorderreductionsymplecticgeometryRiemannianoptimizationsymmetricpositivedefinitematricesconstrainedautoencoderenergyconservationlong-termstability
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

GeoHNN is a framework for learning Hamiltonian dynamics from data with two geometric priors built in: the inertia matrix is parameterized as a point on the manifold of symmetric positive-definite matrices, and the phase space is reduced through an autoencoder whose encoder-decoder layer pairs are biorthogonal inverses, so the latent space is meant to inherit the symplectic structure that makes phase-space volume conserved. The paper argues that these two constraints are what let learned models stay accurate, stable, and energy-conserving over long horizons and in high-dimensional systems where vanilla HNNs and unconstrained autoencoders drift or collapse. If the claim holds, explicit geometry is not decoration: it is the mechanism that turns a neural network trained on trajectories into a reduced Hamiltonian system with the same conservation laws as the original.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symplectic manifold Galerkin reduction map $R_{\mathrm{SMG}}$ built from the embedding $\varphi$ and the musical isomorphisms of the symplectic form $\omega$, together with the SPD exponential map $\operatorname{Exp}_{M_0}(\Xi) = M_0^{1/2} \exp(M_0^{-1/2} \Xi M_0^{-1/2}) M_0^{1/2}$ for the inverse inertia. The biorthogonality constraint $\Psi_l^\top \Phi_l = I$ with invertible paired activations makes the encoder-decoder composition the identity, which is the mechanism that turns the autoencoder into a reduction map; the SPD parameterization is the mechanism that keeps inertia matrices positive definite while optimization moves along the manifold.

What would settle it

Train GeoHNN on the deformable-cloth data, then at the learned encoder and decoder compute the pulled-back symplectic matrix $J_{\mathrm{latent}} = (D\varphi)^\top J (D\varphi)$ at a sample of latent points; if $J_{\mathrm{latent}}$ is singular or its canonical eigenvalues differ from $\pm 1$, the latent space is not symplectic and the claimed volume-preservation guarantee does not hold. Alternatively, integrate many nearby latent initial conditions and measure whether their occupancy volume changes over time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a reduced-order Hamiltonian model can be learned end-to-end while exactly preserving both the Riemannian geometry of inertia and the symplectic geometry of phase space. The Hamiltonian is written as $H(q,p)=\frac{1}{2} p^\top M(q)^{-1}p + V(q)$, with the inverse inertia $M(q)^{-1}=\operatorname{Exp}_{M_0}(N_M(q))$ built on the SPD manifold, and the reduction map is realized by a constrained autoencoder whose layer pairs satisfy $\Psi_l^\top \Phi_l = I$ and $\sigma_- \circ \sigma_+ = \mathrm{id}$. The paper argues, via the symplectic manifold Galerkin construction, that this makes the reduced dynamics a Hamiltonian system on the latent space and that the pullback of the canonical symplectic form $\varphi^*\omega$ is preserved. On four low-dimensional systems and a deformable-cloth system, it reports that this combined construction reduces long-term trajectory error by roughly tenfold over an unconstrained autoencoder, cuts position reconstruction error by more than twentyfold, and keeps energy drift bounded where baseline models diverge.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the biorthogonal autoencoder's paired inverse layers make the latent space carry the same area-preserving geometry as the original phase space; the paper invokes this through a nondegeneracy condition on the pulled-back symplectic form but never directly verifies it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GeoHNN's latent-space symplectic Euler rollout should conserve phase-space volume and energy over long horizons, so predictions stay bounded where unconstrained models drift.
  • High-dimensional systems such as deformable cloth become tractable: the biorthogonal autoencoder reduces up to 501 degrees of freedom with position and momentum errors about tenfold and sixfold lower than a vanilla autoencoder.
  • Because the inertia matrix is learned on the SPD manifold, the model avoids ill-conditioning and singular configurations, which the paper links to GeoHNN's bounded energy drift on the two-body problem while a symmetrized baseline diverges to $10^{17}$.
  • The reduction-map property is preserved across degrees of freedom, with position reconstruction error more than twentyfold lower, so the latent representation retains physical information rather than collapsing.
  • The separation of kinetic and potential energy with a geometry-aware inertia network gives a route to interpretable learned mass matrices in rigid-body and robotics-inspired systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the theory only guarantees a Hamiltonian latent system if the pullback $\varphi^*\omega$ is nondegenerate, but the paper never checks that; numerically computing the pullback's symplectic eigenvalues on a trained model would settle whether the biorthogonal layers actually deliver symplectic latent coordinates.
  • Editorial: if the biorthogonal constraint rather than the SPD parameterization is doing most of the work, replacing it with a soft penalty or with spectral-normalized layers should degrade high-DoF reconstruction; this is a direct ablation the paper does not run.
  • Editorial: the framework's stated future targets, such as controlled, dissipative, stochastic, and PDE-governed systems, would require extending the symplectic argument beyond closed conservative systems, since dissipative flows do not preserve phase-space volume.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GeoHNN, a framework for learning reduced-order Hamiltonian dynamics from data. It parameterizes the inverse inertia matrix on the SPD manifold via an exponential map and uses a biorthogonally constrained autoencoder to map full-phase-space states to a low-dimensional latent space, where the reduced Hamiltonian is learned and integrated with a symplectic Euler scheme. The central claim is that the constrained autoencoder preserves the symplectic geometry of phase space and thus phase-space volume in the reduced latent space, yielding superior long-term accuracy, stability, and energy conservation. The experiments compare against MLP and HNN baselines on low-dimensional systems and against a vanilla autoencoder on a high-dimensional deformable cloth.

Significance. If the central claim held, this would be a valuable contribution: a principled nonlinear model-reduction scheme for Hamiltonian systems with rigorous geometric guarantees, plus a sensible SPD parameterization of inertia. The paper is clearly organized and the background is thorough. The low-dimensional experiments appear to support the SPD inertia parameterization, and the high-dimensional results favor the constrained autoencoder over the unconstrained one by large margins. However, the theoretical justification for the symplectic-preservation claim is not valid as stated, and this is load-bearing for the paper's main contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.2] The nondegeneracy hypothesis on the pulled-back symplectic form φ*ω is assumed but never enforced or verified. The biorthogonality constraints Ψ_l^T Φ_l = I and σ_- ∘ σ_+ = id imply only the point projection property ρ ∘ φ = id, i.e., that φ is an injective immersion; they do not imply that φ*ω is nondegenerate. A concrete counterexample is H = R^4 with the standard symplectic form and φ(a,b) = (a,0,b,0), with Φ = Ψ = (e_1, e_3); then Ψ^T Φ = I holds but φ*ω = 0 because the image is a Lagrangian subspace. Thus Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.2, which require nondegeneracy, do not apply to the architecture as described.
  2. [§3.2 and §3.3, symplectic Euler integration in latent coordinates] Even if φ*ω were nondegenerate, the implementation integrates the reduced Hamilton's equations in the latent coordinates with a standard symplectic Euler integrator, which preserves only the canonical form ω_0 = dq ∧ dp on R^{2r}, not the reduced form φ*ω. The biorthogonality constraint does not make φ a symplectomorphism: in the linear case with H = R^{2n}, ω = J, φ = Φ, the condition Ψ^T Φ = I does not imply Φ^T J Φ = J. Consequently, the abstract's claim that the autoencoder ensures preservation of phase-space volume in the reduced latent space does not follow from the architecture.
  3. [§3.2 vs. §3.3, role of the SMG-ROM] Theorem 3.2 guarantees that the SMG-ROM, defined with the specific reduction map R_SMG, is a Hamiltonian system. However, Section 3.3 does not implement this reduction map; instead it directly simulates the latent-space Hamiltonian with a symplectic Euler integrator. The paper does not show that the implemented dynamics coincide with the SMG-ROM or that the latent coordinates are canonical for φ*ω. Therefore the theorem cited as justification does not apply to the actual algorithm used in the experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] References [6] and [7] are the same work (Buchfink, Glas, Haasdonk, Unger, 'Model reduction on manifolds: A differential geometric framework', 2024) and should be merged into a single citation.
  2. [Figures] Several figure captions and axis labels contain the literal string 'uni00A0' (e.g., Figures 1, 2, 13), which appears to be a Unicode rendering artifact and should be fixed.
  3. [§4.4.1 and §4.4.2] There are typos such as 'increaase' (§4.4.1, Single Pendulum) and 'with a a unconstrained vanilla autoencoder' (caption of Figure 10).
  4. [§3.2, R_SMG definition] The displayed definition of R_SMG is garbled: it uses inconsistent symbols (H vs. M, Zω undefined) and the arrow notation is broken. This should be cleaned up so the reduction map is stated precisely.
  5. [§3.3, latent loss notation] The notation in the latent encoding loss is inconsistent with the earlier encoder notation: it refers to ρ_Q and ρ_P separately, while the autoencoder is defined as a single encoder ρ_AE on (q, p). The paper should clarify how latent coordinates are split into ˇq and ˇp and how the reduced Hamiltonian is evaluated on them.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-referential latent-supervision term; the central geometric and empirical claims are externally grounded and not circular.

  1. other [Section 3.3, Latent Encoding Loss (high-dimensional training objective)]
    "To ensure that the learned encodings preserve physical structure, we supervise them using ground truth latent values via: Llatent = X i,j ∥ˇqi(tj) − ρQ(qi(tj))∥2 + ∥ˇpi(tj) − ρP (pi(tj))∥2 ."

    The targets ρQ(qi(tj)) and ρP(pi(tj)) are called 'ground truth latent values,' but ρQ and ρP are the trainable encoders of the same autoencoder being optimized. The loss therefore aligns the predicted latent trajectory (ˇq, ˇp) with the model's own encoding of the true states, so the 'physical structure' that the loss is said to preserve is defined by the very functions under training. This is a self-referential supervision target: target = encoder_theta(state), with theta being fit. It is not load-bearing for the reported accuracy or energy results, because Lmultistep and Lrecon compare against actual state data and the empirical evaluation is against external baselines, but the term is presented as though it provided independent physical supervision.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular in the load-bearing sense. The main geometric guarantee is imported from external sources: Theorem 2.8 and Theorem 3.2 come from the differential-geometric model-reduction framework of Buchfink et al. [7], and the biorthogonal autoencoder construction comes from Otto et al. [35]; neither citation is authored by the present paper's authors, so no self-citation chain supports the central claim. The serious gap is that the theorems require the pulled-back symplectic form φ*ω to be nondegenerate, while the enforced constraints Ψ_l^T Φ_l = I and σ_- ∘ σ_+ = id only guarantee the point projection property ρ ∘ φ = id. That is an unverified hypothesis and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define symplecticity as equivalent to biorthogonality, and the conclusion does not follow from the premises by construction. The empirical claims are benchmarked against MLP, HNN, DoubleHeadHNN, CholeskyHNN, and a vanilla autoencoder on held-out test trajectories, so the reported gains are not forced by fitting. The one genuinely self-referential element is the Latent Encoding Loss, whose 'ground truth' latent values are produced by the model's own encoders; because this term is only one component of L_total and the multistep and reconstruction losses use actual state data, it is minor and non-load-bearing. Overall, the paper is best described as having a non-circular but incompletely verified theoretical claim, with one minor self-referential training term.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several tuned hyperparameters and on two unproven geometric assumptions about the autoencoder: nondegeneracy of the pulled-back symplectic form, and canonicality of the latent coordinates. The paper ships no code or data to pin these down.

free parameters (3)
  • M0, learnable base SPD matrix for inertia parameterization = not reported (learned)
    The inertia network returns a tangent vector at a learnable base point M0; M0 is a free parameter fitting the kinetic-energy part of the Hamiltonian, Section 3.1.
  • Latent dimension 2r for autoencoder = not reported (chosen by hand)
    The reduced-order phase-space dimension is a hyperparameter; no sensitivity analysis is given, Section 4.2.2.
  • Multi-step rollout length N and step size Delta t = not reported
    The multi-step loss L_multistep depends on N and Delta t, which are not specified in Section 3.3 or Section 4.1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: the solution set of the full-order system lies near a 2r-dimensional embedded manifold.
    The whole reduced-order scheme is valid only if such a low-dimensional manifold exists; cited from [7], assumed without validation for the cloth dataset.
  • ad hoc to paper The pulled-back symplectic form phi^* omega on the latent space is nondegenerate (Lemma 3.1 / Theorem 3.2).
    The paper states 'Assuming this symplectic form is non degenerate', but the biorthogonal autoencoder constraints do not enforce or verify it; the central symplectic-preservation claim rests on this unproven hypothesis.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard symplectic Euler integration in arbitrary latent coordinates preserves the reduced symplectic structure.
    The multi-step loss integrates the latent dynamics with symplectic Euler, but symplectic Euler preserves the standard symplectic form only in canonical coordinates; the latent coordinates are not shown to be Darboux.
  • standard math Picard-Lindeloef existence and uniqueness for the learned Hamiltonian vector fields.
    Used implicitly for forward integration of both full and reduced dynamics, Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The affine-invariant metric and exponential map on the SPD manifold are an appropriate geometry for inertia matrices.
    The paper adopts AIM from [32]; this is a modeling choice, not a physical necessity, and it is not compared to other SPD geometries beyond Cholesky and symmetrization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GeoHNNs: Geometric Hamiltonian Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RW325STM

@misc{pith2026250715678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GeoHNNs: Geometric Hamiltonian Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RW325STM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15678}
}
read the original abstract

The fundamental laws of physics are intrinsically geometric, dictating the evolution of systems through principles of symmetry and conservation. While modern machine learning offers powerful tools for modeling complex dynamics from data, common methods often ignore this underlying geometric fabric. Physics-informed neural networks, for instance, can violate fundamental physical principles, leading to predictions that are unstable over long periods, particularly for high-dimensional and chaotic systems. Here, we introduce \textit{Geometric Hamiltonian Neural Networks (GeoHNN)}, a framework that learns dynamics by explicitly encoding the geometric priors inherent to physical laws. Our approach enforces two fundamental structures: the Riemannian geometry of inertia, by parameterizing inertia matrices in their natural mathematical space of symmetric positive-definite matrices, and the symplectic geometry of phase space, using a constrained autoencoder to ensure the preservation of phase space volume in a reduced latent space. We demonstrate through experiments on systems ranging from coupled oscillators to high-dimensional deformable objects that GeoHNN significantly outperforms existing models. It achieves superior long-term stability, accuracy, and energy conservation, confirming that embedding the geometry of physics is not just a theoretical appeal but a practical necessity for creating robust and generalizable models of the physical world.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15678 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Long-term trajectory error as a function of time for the mass-spring system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy drift as a function of time for the mass-spring system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Long-term trajectory error as a function of time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy drift as a function of time for 3-coupled oscillators system. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Long-term trajectory error as a function of time for the two body problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy Drift as a function of time for the two body problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Long-term trajectory error as a function of time for the single pendulum system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Energy drift as a function of time for the single pendulum system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prediction error across degrees of freedom for position and momentum using GeoHNN with a constrained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Prediction error across degrees of freedom for position and momentum using GeoHNN with a a unconstrained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Trajectory reconstruction comparison for position and momentum using constrained biorthogonal autoen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Trajectory reconstruction comparison for position and momentum using unconstrained vanilla autoencoder. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Training time comparison for different models across various physical systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Geometry-Induced Long-Range Correlations in Recurrent Neural Network Quantum States

    quant-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Dilated RNN wave functions induce power-law correlations for the critical 1D transverse-field Ising model and the Cluster state, unlike the exponential decay of conventional RNN ansatze.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V .I. Arnold. Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, volume 60. Springer, 1989

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Autoencoders, 2021

    Dor Bank, Noam Koenigstein, and Raja Giryes. Autoencoders, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Battaglia, Jessica B

    Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulcehre, Francis Song, Andrew Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wierstra...

    2018

  4. [4]

    The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows

    G Berkooz, P Holmes, and J L Lumley. The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 25(V olume 25, 1993):539–575, 1993

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Symplectic model reduction of hamiltonian systems on nonlinear manifolds, 2021

    Patrick Buchfink, Silke Glas, and Bernard Haasdonk. Symplectic model reduction of hamiltonian systems on nonlinear manifolds, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [7]

    Model reduction on manifolds: A differential geometric framework, 2024

    Patrick Buchfink, Silke Glas, Bernard Haasdonk, and Benjamin Unger. Model reduction on manifolds: A differential geometric framework, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    Riemannian adaptive optimization methods, 2019

    Gary Bécigneul and Octavian-Eugen Ganea. Riemannian adaptive optimization methods, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [9]

    Nathan Kutz, and Steven L

    Kathleen Champion, Bethany Lusch, J. Nathan Kutz, and Steven L. Brunton. Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(45):22445–22451, October 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [10]

    Ricky T. Q. Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations, 2019

    2019

  2. [11]

    Symplectic recurrent neural networks, 2020

    Zhengdao Chen, Jianyu Zhang, Martin Arjovsky, and Léon Bottou. Symplectic recurrent neural networks, 2020

    2020

  3. [12]

    Learning generalized hamiltonians using fully symplectic mappings, 2024

    Harsh Choudhary, Chandan Gupta, Vyacheslav kungrutsev, Melvin Leok, and Georgios Korpas. Learning generalized hamiltonians using fully symplectic mappings, 2024

    2024

  4. [13]

    Lagrangian neural networks, 2020

    Miles Cranmer, Sam Greydanus, Stephan Hoyer, Peter Battaglia, David Spergel, and Shirley Ho. Lagrangian neural networks, 2020

    2020

  5. [14]

    Hamiltonian reduction using a convolutional auto-encoder coupled to an hamiltonian neural network, 2024

    Raphaël Côte, Emmanuel Franck, Laurent Navoret, Guillaume Steimer, and Vincent Vigon. Hamiltonian reduction using a convolutional auto-encoder coupled to an hamiltonian neural network, 2024

    2024

  6. [15]

    Geometries and Interpolations for Symmetric Positive Definite Matrices, pages 85–113

    Aasa Feragen and Andrea Fuster. Geometries and Interpolations for Symmetric Positive Definite Matrices, pages 85–113. Springer, 01 2017

    2017

  7. [16]

    Simplifying hamiltonian and lagrangian neural networks via explicit constraints, 10 2020

    Marc Finzi, Ke Wang, and Andrew Wilson. Simplifying hamiltonian and lagrangian neural networks via explicit constraints, 10 2020

    2020

  8. [17]

    Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to Applications, volume 1 of Computational Science Series

    Daan Frenkel and Berend Smit. Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to Applications, volume 1 of Computational Science Series. Academic Press, San Diego, second edition, 2002

    2002

  9. [18]

    A riemannian framework for learning reduced-order lagrangian dynamics, 2025

    Katharina Friedl, Noémie Jaquier, Jens Lundell, Tamim Asfour, and Danica Kragic. A riemannian framework for learning reduced-order lagrangian dynamics, 2025

    2025

  10. [19]

    Classical Mechanics

    Herbert Goldstein. Classical Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, 1980

    1980

  11. [20]

    Hamiltonian neural networks, 2019

    Sam Greydanus, Misko Dzamba, and Jason Yosinski. Hamiltonian neural networks, 2019

    2019

  12. [21]

    Introduction to Tensor Analysis and the Calculus of Moving Surfaces

    Pavel Grinfeld. Introduction to Tensor Analysis and the Calculus of Moving Surfaces. Springer Science & Business Media, illustrated edition, 2013

    2013

  13. [22]

    C. J. Isham. Modern Differential Geometry For Physicists. World Scientific, 1989

    1989

  14. [23]

    Geoopt: Riemannian optimization in pytorch, 2020

    Max Kochurov, Rasul Karimov, and Serge Kozlukov. Geoopt: Riemannian optimization in pytorch, 2020

    2020

  15. [24]

    The variational principles of mechanics

    Cornelius Lanczos. The variational principles of mechanics. Dover books on physics and chemistry; no. 4. Dover Publications, New York, fourth edition edition, 1970

    1970

  16. [25]

    Deep learning

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. nature, 521(7553):436, 2015

    2015

  17. [26]

    John M. Lee. Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. Springer, 2000

    2000

  18. [27]

    Riemannian geometry of symmetric positive definite matrices via cholesky decomposition

    Zhenhua Lin. Riemannian geometry of symmetric positive definite matrices via cholesky decomposition. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 40(4):1353–1370, January 2019. 23 GeoHNN: Geometric Hamiltonian Neural Networks A PREPRINT

    2019

  19. [28]

    Liouville

    J. Liouville. Note sur la théorie de la variation des constantes arbitraires. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, pages 342–349, 1838

  20. [29]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019

    2019

  21. [30]

    Deep lagrangian networks: Using physics as model prior for deep learning, 2019

    Michael Lutter, Christian Ritter, and Jan Peters. Deep lagrangian networks: Using physics as model prior for deep learning, 2019

    2019

  22. [31]

    The need for biases in learning generalizations, 10 2002

    Tom Mitchell. The need for biases in learning generalizations, 10 2002

    2002

  23. [32]

    A differential geometric approach to the geometric mean of symmetric positive-definite matrices

    Maher Moakher. A differential geometric approach to the geometric mean of symmetric positive-definite matrices. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 26(3):735–747, March 2005

    2005

  24. [33]

    Murray, S

    Richard M. Murray, S. Shankar Sastry, and Li Zexiang. A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation. CRC Press, Inc., USA, 1st edition, 1994

    1994

  25. [34]

    E. Noether. Invariante variationsprobleme. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 1918:235–257, 1918

    1918

  26. [35]

    Otto, Gregory R

    Samuel E. Otto, Gregory R. Macchio, and Clarence W. Rowley. Learning nonlinear projections for reduced-order modeling of dynamical systems using constrained autoencoders, 2023

    2023

  27. [36]

    Symplectic model reduction of hamiltonian systems, 2015

    Liqian Peng and Kamran Mohseni. Symplectic model reduction of hamiltonian systems, 2015

    2015

  28. [37]

    Springer, 01 2008

    Wil Schilders, Henk Van der V orst, and Joost Rommes.Model Order Reduction: Theory, Research Aspects and Applications, volume 13. Springer, 01 2008

    2008

  29. [38]

    Loring W. Tu. Differential Equations on Manifolds. Universitext. Springer, 2020

    2020

  30. [39]

    Smith, and Carl T

    Sreeram Venkat, Ralph C. Smith, and Carl T. Kelley. Convolutional autoencoders for reduced-order modeling, 2021

    2021

  31. [40]

    Ordinary Differential Equations

    Wolfgang Walter. Ordinary Differential Equations. Springer, 1998

    1998

  32. [41]

    Generalized lagrangian neural networks, 2024

    Shanshan Xiao, Jiawei Zhang, and Yifa Tang. Generalized lagrangian neural networks, 2024

    2024

  33. [42]

    manifolds

    Yaofeng Desmond Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty. Symplectic ode-net: Learning hamiltonian dynamics with control, 2024. 24 GeoHNN: Geometric Hamiltonian Neural Networks A PREPRINT A Mathematical Formalism In this section, we outline the mathematical background needed ...

    2024

  34. [43]

    M is second-countable (possesses a countable basis for its topology)

  35. [44]

    The pair (U, φ) is called a coordinate chart or simply a chart

    M is locally Euclidean: for each pointp ∈ M, there exists an open neighborhoodU ∋ p and a homeomorphism φ : U → V ⊆ Rn, where V is open in Rn. The pair (U, φ) is called a coordinate chart or simply a chart. The homeomorphism φ provides local coordinates for points in U. Remark...

  36. [45]

    Definition A.4 (Smooth Manifold)

    For any two charts (Uα, φα) and (Uβ, φβ) with Uα ∩ Uβ ̸= ∅, the transition map φβ ◦ φ−1 α : φα(Uα ∩ Uβ) → φβ(Uα ∩ Uβ) is a smooth (C ∞) diffeomorphism. Definition A.4 (Smooth Manifold). A smooth manifold is a topological manifold M equipped with a maximal smooth atlas. Theorem...

  37. [46]

    For a single pendulum, the position is described by an angle θ, which lives on the circle S1, a 1-dimensional manifold

  38. [47]

    For a double pendulum, the configuration space isS1 × S1, a 2-dimensional manifold representing two angular degrees of freedom

  39. [48]

    For a rigid body in 3D space, the configuration manifold is SE (3), the special Euclidean group of rigid transformations, which combines translation (R3) and rotation (SO(3)). These examples illustrate that configuration spaces naturally form smooth manifolds, often with nontr...

  40. [49]

    Rp(0p) = p for all p ∈ M

  41. [50]

    Each proof is self-contained and follows from the assumptions and definitions introduced earlier

    dRp|0p = idTpM , where we identify T0p TpM ∼= TpM B Mathematical Proofs In this section, we present formal proofs for the theoretical results stated in the main text based on [6]. Each proof is self-contained and follows from the assumptions and definitions introduced earlier....

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.