Deep Neural Networks as Discrete Dynamical Systems: Implications for Physics-Informed Learning

We introduce \emph{Dynamical Physics-Modeled Neural Networks} (DynPMNNs), a continuous-time deep learning architecture in which each hidden layer is defined as the solution of an ordinary differential equation. Unlike classical feed-forward networks, this approach replaces static activation functions with time-evolving dynamical systems, providing a biologically inspired interpretation of hidden-layer behavior and enabling the integration of physically meaningful models. The framework is rigorously grounded in Reproducing Kernel Banach Spaces (RKBSs), allowing DynPMNNs to be characterized as finite-dimensional solutions of an abstract training problem and revealing structural connections with standard neural networks. We present a concrete implementation based on the FitzHugh--Nagumo model for neuronal activation, where numerical ODE solvers are embedded into the computational graph via Euler-type schemes. Both network weights and dynamical parameters are trained jointly. Through experiments on the California Housing dataset, we compare DynPMNNs with Neural ODEs (NODEs) and Closed-form Continuous-Time Networks (CfCs). Despite using fewer trainable parameters, DynPMNNs achieve competitive performance. These results position DynPMNNs as a principled bridge between dynamical systems and deep learning, with promising directions for further research in expressivity, stability, and physics-based modeling.

We propose a linearized Physics-Informed Neural Network (lPINN), a reduced-order neural basis method for forward and inverse differential equations. In an offline stage, lPINN learns operator-compatible continuous neural basis functions from an ensemble of numerical solutions. The basis functions are differentiable through automatic differentiation and are pretrained using solution data together with either derivative information or physics residuals. For each new problem instance, the basis functions are frozen and the solution is obtained by minimizing the governing-equation residual together with applicable initial, boundary, regularization, and observational terms. Unlike surrogate and operator-learning methods, the training data define the trial space offline, while the instance-specific solution is computed online by enforcing the governing physics. Relative to vanilla PINNs, lPINN pretrains the nonlinear hidden-layer representation offline and performs online inference only in the final linear layer. We evaluate lPINN on forward and inverse problems for the advection-diffusion equation, Burgers' equation, and the nonlinear pendulum equation. Compared with vanilla PINNs, lPINN achieves lower solution and parameter errors while reducing online inference times by approximately one to more than three orders of magnitude, with the largest gains generally observed for limited residual or measurement data. Cross-resolution experiments show that the learned continuous representation can be evaluated on finer meshes without retraining and with nearly unchanged accuracy.

This paper is a step-by-step, self-contained guide to the complete training cycle of a Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) -- a topic that existing tutorials and guides typically delegate to automatic differentiation libraries without exposing the underlying algebra. Using a first-order initial value problem with a known analytical solution as a running example, we walk through every stage of the process: forward propagation of both the network output and its temporal derivative, evaluation of a composite loss function built from the ODE residual and the initial condition, backpropagation of gradients -- with particular attention to the product rule that arises in hidden layers -- and a gradient descent parameter update. Every calculation is presented with explicit, verifiable numerical values using a 1-3-3-1 multilayer perceptron with two hidden layers and 22 trainable parameters. From these concrete examples, we derive general recursive formulas -- expressed as sensitivity propagation relations -- that extend the gradient computation to networks of arbitrary depth, and we connect these formulas to the automatic differentiation engines used in practice. The trained network is then validated against the exact solution, achieving a relative $L^2$ error of $4.290 \times 10^{-4}$ using only the physics-informed loss, without any data from the true solution. A companion Jupyter/PyTorch notebook reproduces every manual calculation and the full training pipeline, providing mutual validation between hand-derived and machine-computed gradients.