cs.LGJun 9, 2026

Energy-Conserved Neural Pipelines: Attenuating Error Propagation in Modular Neural Networks via Physical Conservation Constraints

Authors: David YoungSwan Yi Htet

Organizations: ORION Robotics

Abstract

Modular neural network pipelines suffer from error compounding: noise at any module boundary propagates and potentially amplifies through subsequent modules. We introduce energy conservation as a hard physical constraint on inter-module information flow. Activation energy (the squared L2 norm of feature vectors) is enforced to be exactly preserved at every module boundary. Unlike soft energy penalties, conservation is an inviolable law: the network may redistribute energy across neurons but cannot create or destroy it. Four experiments on CIFAR-10 demonstrate: (1) conservation retains 77.4% of clean accuracy at noise sigma=0.2, versus 35.1% for baselines and 30.9% for energy-penalized models (p<0.001, 5 seeds); (2) pipelines become depth-invariant, retaining 93.3% at depths 2 through 5 with noise at every boundary; (3) the advantage generalizes to systematic bias (+45.1%), Gaussian (+40.4%), and adversarial noise (+4.8%), with a principled non-effect on dropout (-0.3%); (4) on ResNet-18, the conservation advantage scales inversely with intrinsic normalization: +0.3 pp with BatchNorm, +26.2 pp without at sigma=0.2, reaching +58.0 pp at sigma=0.5. Experiment 5 validates the operator on a real modular robotic pipeline (MuJoCo physics, Franka Panda). Across three independent runs on separate machines (90 trials per cell), conservation provides +18.9 pp average advantage on monocular-depth-style noise. A formal bound proves conserved noise energy is strictly less than input noise energy.

Explore similar work

May 16, 2026cs.LG

Prediction Is Not Physics: Learning and Evaluating Conserved Quantities in Neural Simulators

A diffusion model trained on Hamiltonian trajectories can achieve rollout MSE near 10310^{-3}, but the standard deviation of its energy over time is between 7500 and 36000 times larger than the ground-truth energy standard deviation, indicating a failure to preserve conservation laws. This gap motivates our central question of whether neural networks can learn or select globally conserved quantities from physical trajectories. We investigate this across three Hamiltonian systems: projectile motion, pendulum, and spring-mass. We use a structured T(v)+V(q)T(v)+V(q) energy model, a black-box Conservation Discovery Network (CDN), a polynomial CDN, and a conditional diffusion baseline. The structured network reaches R20.9999R^2 \geq 0.9999 against analytical energy on clean data, while the black-box CDN reaches R20.996R^2 \geq 0.996 when trained with temporal consistency plus a small alignment loss to analytical energy at t=0t=0 (λalign=0.2λ_{\mathrm{align}}=0.2). With λalign=0λ_{\mathrm{align}}=0, CDN Pearson R2R^2 collapses on pendulum and spring-mass (<103< 10^{-3}), showing that temporal consistency alone is not enough to reliably identify the true energy. Under 1%1\% additive Gaussian noise, the CDN outperforms the structured model on the projectile and spring-mass systems, suggesting that the CDN may be more robust to noisy inputs in this setting. However, the polynomial CDN is sensitive to training configuration: it achieves R2=0.78R^2=0.78 under a short training schedule on the pendulum system, but reaches R2=0.9998R^2=0.9998 with more training time and data, regardless of whether noise is added.
Andrew Bukowski, Aditya Kothari, Simba Shi +1
Apr 27, 2026cs.LG

minAction.net: Energy-First Neural Architecture Design -- From Biological Principles to Systematic Validation

Modern machine learning optimizes for accuracy without explicit treatment of internal computational cost, even though physical and biological systems operate under intrinsic energy constraints. We evaluate energy-aware learning across 2,203 experiments spanning vision, text, neuromorphic, and physiological datasets with 10 seeds per configuration and factorial statistical analysis. Three findings emerge. First, architecture alone explains negligible variance in accuracy (partial eta^2 = 0.001), while the architecture x dataset interaction is large (partial eta^2 = 0.44, p < 0.001), demonstrating that optimal architecture depends critically on task modality and rejecting the assumption of a universal best architecture. Second, a controlled lambda-sweep across lambda in {0, 1e-5, 1e-4, 1e-3, 1e-2} validates a single-parameter energy-regularized objective L = L_CE + lambda * E(theta, x): across this range, internal activation energy decreases by approximately three orders of magnitude relative to the unregularized lambda=0 baseline, with negligible accuracy change (<0.5 percentage points) on both MNIST and Fashion-MNIST. Third, energy-first architectures inspired by an action-principle framework yield 5-33% within-modality training-efficiency gains over conventional baselines. These results emerge from a research program that interprets learning through a structural correspondence between the action functional in classical mechanics, free energy in statistical physics, and KL-regularized objectives in variational inference. We frame this correspondence as a design hypothesis, not a derivation.
Martin G. Frasch
Jul 30, 2026cond-mat.soft

Conservation laws determine what physical learning remembers

Physical learning rules such as equilibrium propagation (EP), coupled learning (CL), and adjoint coupled learning (AL) train resistive networks through local measurements. In the small-nudge limit EP and CL exactly conserve the conductance mass K = (1/2) sum_e kappa_e^2, a property that stabilizes training. We show that conservation also governs the inductive bias of these rules. For a single output we prove that EP and CL are trajectory equivalent, so single-output experiments cannot distinguish what the two rules learn. We prove that AL does not conserve the mass but dissipates it at exactly twice its own loss. In linear circuits we prove that the conserved mass has no functional consequence: all three vector fields are homogeneous in the conductances, so the selected solution is independent of the initialization scale. Fixed nonlinear elements break this protection. In diode circuits the learned input-output function depends on the initialization scale by up to about forty percent, an effect absent in linear controls, and the conservative rules retain this memory permanently while the dissipative rule partially erases it. At matched training loss the dissipative rule typically generalizes worse than the conservative rules, although it reaches low training loss faster; the penalty correlates with the mass dissipated en route and fades in larger circuits, where little mass is lost. The conservation structure of a local learning rule thus sets its initialization memory, its training speed, and, where dissipation is appreciable, its generalization; it should be treated as a design parameter of physical learning machines.
Bijaya Dangol