Tackling Failure Modes of PINNs and PIKANs Using Conflict-Free Gradients

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) train a single neural approximation by minimizing multiple physics- and data-derived losses, but the gradients of these losses often interfere and can stall optimization. Existing remedies typically treat this pathology either through scalar loss balancing or full-parameter-space gradient surgery, leaving it unclear which intervention is most appropriate. We show that PINN gradient conflict is not a uniform failure mode with one universal remedy. Instead, we identify distinct PINN gradient-conflict regimes, each associated with a different intervention class. Persistent directional conflict may require separate loss-indexed parameter subspaces, magnitude imbalance often favors scalar reweighting, and low or transient conflict may require no extra mitigation. To select between scalar reweighting and a lightweight architectural intervention, we propose a diagnostic-first framework. It profiles a 1000-step unmodified PINN run and, when intervention is warranted, uses one low-rank adapter per loss to create explicit loss-indexed parameter subspaces attached to a shared PINN trunk, providing each loss with a direct gradient pathway. Across more than 60 PDE configurations, including forward, inverse, multi-physics, parameter-varying, and high-dimensional problems up to 50D, persistent directional conflict dominates standard forward $K=3$ benchmarks and a natural $K=4$ thermoelastic system, where adapters combined with reweighting yield significant improvements. In contrast, $K=3$ inverse problems and natural $K=5$ and $K=6$ multi-physics systems are largely magnitude-dominated and often favor reweighting alone, while full-parameter-space gradient surgery can fail on heterogeneous parameter spaces.

Training Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) requires jointly optimizing physics residual and initial/boundary condition loss terms, which often induce conflicting gradients. Gradient surgery methods mitigate this issue by constructing directions from loss-specific gradients to reduce conflict before optimizer transformation. However, even when the constructed direction is conflict-free, this property may not be preserved after optimizer transformation. Let $a_t$ denote the direction constructed by gradient surgery, $u_t$ the optimizer proposal, and $\mathcal{C}_t$ the conflict-free cone induced by the loss-specific gradients. We show that modern optimizers can transform $a_t$ through mechanisms such as historical state, adaptive scaling, preconditioning, or decoupled weight decay, so $a_t \in \mathcal{C}_t$ does not generally imply $u_t \in \mathcal{C}_t$. We refer to this optimizer-induced discrepancy in conflict-freeness between $a_t$ and $u_t$ as Gradient-Update Mismatch (GUM). Accordingly, we propose Gradient-Update Alignment (GUA), which projects $u_t$ onto $\mathcal{C}_t$ to obtain the aligned update $p_t$ and applies $p_t$ to the parameters. When the optimizer maintains internal state, GUA further adjusts this state toward targets reconstructed from the applied update. We conduct extensive experiments and find that GUM is widespread across momentum, adaptive, and curvature-based optimizers, with conflict rates reaching up to 86.3%. Across all PINN settings, GUA achieves conflict-free applied updates and consistently improves various gradient surgery methods, reducing the relative $L_2$ error by up to 98.2% in individual settings. Data and code are available at https://github.com/JingXiao10/GUA.

While Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are powerful for solving Partial Differential Equations (PDEs), their training is often paralyzed by gradient pathology. The gradients from the PDE residuals and boundary constraints oppose each other, trapping the model in local minima. Current solutions, such as adaptive weighting or hard constraints, either fail to fundamentally resolve this ill-conditioning or are limited to simple geometries. In this study, we systematically analyze the possible causes of this gradient pathology from the perspectives of loss landscapes and optimization dynamics. Based on the obtained conclusion, we propose Constraint-Aligned loss with Manifold Lifting (CAML). By reformulating all zeroth-order terms into aligned constraints, our method effectively mitigates gradient conflicts. In addition, we introduce a delay factor to help the optimizer skip the high-curvature area. Experiments demonstrate that our CAML significantly enhances numerical stability and efficiency in highly complex PINN problems. Our code is open-sourced on https://github.com/YichenLuo-0/CAML.