math.AGSep 2, 2026

Equilibria for Networks of Linear Translational Springs

Authors: Luke OedingEthan ClaytonJackson ElseaNicholas WangAdam Rutkowski

Abstract

We use tools from nonlinear algebra to study the equilibria of small linear translational spring networks. Specifically we use the techniques of homotopy continuation, monodromy, and parameter homotopy (a.k.a. cheater homotopy) to solve all rigid linear translational spring networks up to 55 nodes in both 22 and 33 dimensions. We describe a method of implementing parameter homotopy that arises naturally from the physical structure of the system. We give precise total degree bounds on the maximum number of solutions for general planar spring networks. We discuss further efficiency gains obtained from polyhedral homotopy methods. We compare the computation efficiency of these techniques against a baseline of Newton's method.

Explore similar work

Jun 13, 2026math.OC

Dual-Network PINNs for Optimal Control: A Reproducible Benchmark on the Mass-Spring-Damper System

This work presents a transparent and reproducible benchmark study of a direct dual-network Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) formulation for the optimal control of a mass-spring-damper system. The classical linear-quadratic optimal control problem is solved by two independent classical methods -- Pontryagin's Minimum Principle with single shooting, and direct transcription through trapezoidal collocation -- and recast as a constrained optimization problem solved by two feedforward neural networks: a state network whose boundary conditions are enforced exactly through a composite cubic-and-mask ansatz, and an unconstrained control network. The composite loss combines the physics residual at the collocation points with a trapezoidal approximation of the cost functional, weighted by a single scalar hyperparameter. On the benchmark considered, the PINN reproduces the classical optimal cost to four significant digits, satisfies the terminal state constraints exactly by construction, and produces pointwise state and control errors that fall within the spread of the two classical references. Training is approximately two orders of magnitude slower than classical shooting on this benchmark, which is honestly reported. The contribution is methodological clarity rather than methodological novelty: the formulation and the accompanying Google Colab implementation are intended to lower the barrier to entry for practitioners exploring PINN-based optimal control without prior exposure to adjoint methods or two-point boundary value problems.
Abdeladhim Tahimi, Rinaldo Vieira da Silva Junior
Jun 19, 2026cs.CG

Arc-Length Parameterized Interpolating Splines

We present an iterative algorithm to compute an arc-length parameterized spline interpolating a set of points. This differs from other methods where the computed spline either does not interpolate the original points or the parameterization is not the arc-length of the returned curves. Our method is applicable in any dimension D2D \ge 2, and we illustrate it with numerical results for plane curves.
Dafna K. Matsegora, Stephen M. Watt
Apr 21, 2026cs.LG

Physics-Guided Dimension Reduction for Simulation-Free Operator Learning of Stiff Differential-Algebraic Systems

Neural surrogates for stiff differential-algebraic equations (DAEs) face two barriers: soft-constraint methods leave algebraic residuals that stiffness amplifies into errors, and hard-constraint methods require trajectory data from stiff integrators. We introduce an extended Newton implicit layer that enforces algebraic constraints exactly and reduces fast dynamics to their quasi-steady-state values in a single differentiable solve. Embedded in a physics-informed DeepONet, the layer recovers all fast and algebraic states exactly from slow-state predictions, removes the per-window stiffness-amplification pathway, and yields a stiffness-scaled Implicit Function Theorem gradient absent from penalty methods. Cascaded implicit layers extend this to multi-component systems with provable convergence. On a grid-forming inverter (stiffness ratio of about 4712), extended Newton attains 1.42% error versus 39.3% (penalty) and 57.0% (standard Newton); augmented Lagrangian and feedback linearization diverged. Two independently trained models compose without retraining (0.72% to 1.16% error, exact constraint satisfaction). Cross-domain validation on the Robertson stiff DAE (stiffness ratio up to 10510^5) confirms generalization. Conformal prediction provides 90% coverage with automatic out-of-distribution detection.
Huy Hoang Le, Haoguang Wang, Christian Moya +2