Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 36 references

A trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid in PINNs yields higher accuracy with fewer parameters than prior methods and reaches near machine precision on difficult problems using Adam.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 15:39 UTC pith:LMRMA6TF

load-bearing objection Beignet swaps random Fourier features for a trainable multi-resolution pyramid with spectral derivatives, claiming better PINN accuracy but with thin experimental detail. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.24278 v1 pith:LMRMA6TF submitted 2026-05-22 cs.LG

Fourier Feature Pyramids for Physics-Informed Neural Networks

Brandon Zhao , Yixuan Wang , Jonathan T. Barron , Katherine L. Bouman , Dor Verbin , Pratul P. Srinivasan This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords physics-informed neural networksFourier featurespartial differential equationsneural fieldsmulti-resolution embeddingsbandlimited representationsBurgers equationneural PDE solvers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents beignet, an architecture for physics-informed neural networks that solves partial differential equations more accurately. It replaces random Fourier feature embeddings with a trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid queried via Fourier interpolation. This design enables efficient spectral computation of derivatives using the FFT and allows scaling accuracy by increasing pyramid parameters rather than network size. The result is higher accuracy on benchmarks with fewer total parameters and the ability to reach near machine precision residuals on the inviscid Burgers blowup problem using only the Adam optimizer.

Core claim

beignet replaces the random Fourier feature embedding used by existing PINN models with a trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid. To query beignet at a continuous coordinate, Fourier interpolation at each level of the pyramid returns features at the input coordinate, and then decodes this vector with a fully-connected neural network trunk. This enables efficient derivative computation by composing automatic differentiation with spectral FFT derivatives, efficient accuracy scaling by increasing pyramid parameters, and direct bandlimit control for stable optimization on difficult PDEs.

What carries the argument

Trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid queried by Fourier interpolation, with derivatives obtained via FFT on the grids.

Load-bearing premise

The trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid can be stably optimized to produce features that satisfy the PDE residual at the required accuracy without introducing artifacts from the interpolation or bandlimit choices.

What would settle it

A side-by-side evaluation on the PDE benchmarks or Burgers blowup problem showing that beignet does not produce lower residuals than prior PINN methods at matched parameter counts, or that Adam optimization fails to reach residuals near machine precision, would falsify the central performance claims.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Spatial derivatives are computed efficiently by composing automatic differentiation on the trunk network with spectral derivatives of the feature grids via the FFT.
  • Accuracy scales by increasing the parameter count of the Fourier feature pyramid rather than the size of the neural network trunk.
  • Direct control over the representation bandlimit produces more stable optimization on difficult PDEs.
  • PDE benchmark solutions achieve significantly higher accuracy using fewer total parameters than state-of-the-art PINN methods.
  • Residuals on the self-similar inviscid Burgers blowup problem reach near machine precision using only the Adam optimizer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The multi-resolution pyramid structure may transfer to other coordinate-based neural representations where controlling frequency content across scales is useful.
  • Bandlimit control could reduce reliance on specialized optimizers in a broader class of physics-constrained learning tasks.
  • The same interpolation-plus-FFT derivative mechanism might be applied to time-dependent or higher-dimensional PDEs to handle multi-scale behavior.
  • Parameter efficiency gains could translate to reduced memory requirements when deploying these models for large-scale or real-time simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces beignet, a neural field architecture for physics-informed neural networks that replaces random Fourier features with a trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid. Features are queried via Fourier interpolation at each pyramid level and decoded by a fully-connected trunk; spatial derivatives are obtained by composing automatic differentiation on the trunk with FFT-based spectral derivatives on the grids. The central claims are that this yields significantly higher accuracy on PDE benchmarks using fewer parameters than prior PINN methods and that residuals on the self-similar inviscid Burgers blowup can be driven to near machine precision with Adam.

Significance. If the experimental claims hold, the work would be significant for PINN research: the shift to trainable, explicitly band-limited features plus FFT derivatives directly targets known optimization instabilities, and the ability to scale accuracy by increasing pyramid parameters rather than trunk width offers a more efficient route to high-precision solutions. The architecture description is internally consistent for band-limited functions and avoids circularity in the derivative or interpolation steps.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (Experimental Results)] The abstract and introduction assert near-machine-precision residuals on the Burgers problem and superior benchmark performance, yet the provided text supplies no quantitative details on grid resolutions, band-limit schedules, training-set sizes, error bars, or ablation studies that would allow independent verification of these load-bearing claims.
  2. [§3 (Architecture) and §4] The weakest assumption—that the trainable pyramid can be stably optimized without interpolation or band-limit artifacts—is not accompanied by a diagnostic (e.g., residual spectra or convergence plots under varying band limits) that would confirm the assumption holds at the reported precision.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for the multi-resolution grids and the precise definition of the Fourier interpolation operator should be introduced with an equation in §3 to avoid ambiguity when readers reconstruct the derivative composition.
  2. [Figure 2 and Table 1] Figure captions for the benchmark comparisons should explicitly state the total parameter count and optimizer settings used by each baseline method.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will incorporate revisions to enhance the clarity and verifiability of the experimental claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4 (Experimental Results)] The abstract and introduction assert near-machine-precision residuals on the Burgers problem and superior benchmark performance, yet the provided text supplies no quantitative details on grid resolutions, band-limit schedules, training-set sizes, error bars, or ablation studies that would allow independent verification of these load-bearing claims.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and introduction summarize results at a high level. Section 4 of the manuscript contains the experimental configurations, but to facilitate independent verification we will expand the revised manuscript with a dedicated experimental setup subsection that explicitly lists grid resolutions, band-limit schedules, training-set sizes, and training hyperparameters. We will also add error bars from multiple independent runs and ablation studies on pyramid depth and band limits. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 (Architecture) and §4] The weakest assumption—that the trainable pyramid can be stably optimized without interpolation or band-limit artifacts—is not accompanied by a diagnostic (e.g., residual spectra or convergence plots under varying band limits) that would confirm the assumption holds at the reported precision.

    Authors: The empirical evidence for stable optimization is the successful minimization of residuals to near machine precision on the inviscid Burgers blowup using Adam, a regime not previously reported with first-order methods. Nevertheless, we concur that explicit diagnostics would strengthen the claim. In the revision we will add residual spectra and training convergence curves for multiple band-limit schedules to directly demonstrate the absence of interpolation or band-limit artifacts at the reported precision levels. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper introduces beignet as a new trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid architecture for PINNs, with performance claims resting on empirical benchmarks rather than any derivation chain. No equations, predictions, or fitted quantities reduce to model-internal definitions by construction. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are present in the provided text. The architecture description (Fourier interpolation, FFT derivatives, bandlimit control) is internally consistent and externally validated via experiments on PDEs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated beyond the model name itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5831 in / 1128 out tokens · 27349 ms · 2026-06-30T15:39:32.315880+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an improved neural field architecture for solving partial differential equations (PDEs). Current physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) provide a flexible framework for solving PDEs, but they struggle to achieve highly accurate solutions and require computation that scales poorly with parameter count. Our model, which we call beignet (Bandlimited Embedding with Interpolated Grid Network), replaces the random Fourier feature embedding used by existing PINN models with a trainable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid. To query beignet at a continuous coordinate, we use Fourier interpolation at each level of the pyramid to return features at the input coordinate, and then decode this vector with a fully-connected neural network trunk. Our model provides multiple benefits: 1) Spatial derivatives can be computed efficiently by using the chain rule to compose derivatives of the neural network computed with automatic differentiation with derivatives of the feature grid computed spectrally by the Fast Fourier transform (FFT). 2) beignet can achieve higher accuracy in a compute-efficient manner by scaling the parameter count of this Fourier feature pyramid, instead of the less-efficient strategy of scaling the neural network architecture. 3) beignet can directly control the representation bandlimit, resulting in more stable optimization for difficult PDEs. We demonstrate that beignet finds significantly more accurate solutions on PDE benchmarks using fewer parameters than state-of-the-art PINN methods. We further evaluate beignet on the self-similar inviscid Burgers blowup problem and show that it can minimize residuals to near machine precision using Adam, an accuracy regime previously attained only by using computationally expensive higher-order optimizers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24278 by Brandon Zhao, Dor Verbin, Jonathan T. Barron, Katherine L. Bouman, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Yixuan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Architecture overview for beignet. A learnable multi-resolution Fourier feature pyramid stores feature grids at coarse-to-fine spatial resolutions, inducing a corresponding hierarchy of bandlimited feature fields. For each query point, every level is evaluated by Fourier interpolation to produce a per-level feature vector. These feature vectors are concatenated and decoded by a compact MLP to produce the s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Feature-pyramid size sweep for Allen–Cahn and KdV. Each point is a parameter-matched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Direct 256 × 256 RGB image fitting. The beignet representation fits the image nearly exactly under the same 2000-step optimization budget, while using a smaller decoder and fewer trainable parameters than the number of stored RGB values in the target image. A Image Fitting Although beignet is designed for PDE residual training, the underlying Fourier feature pyramid is a general coordinate-regression repre… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency-resolved Allen–Cahn diagnostic. Left: root mean squared spatial Fourier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Initialization diagnostic for KdV across 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Frequency bias in neural networks for input of non-uniform density.ICML, 2020

    Ronen Basri, Meirav Galun, Amnon Geifman, David Jacobs, Yoni Kasten, and Shira Kritchman. Frequency bias in neural networks for input of non-uniform density.ICML, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    The Laplacian pyramid as a compact image code.IEEE Transactions on Communications, 1983

    Peter J Burt and Edward H Adelson. The Laplacian pyramid as a compact image code.IEEE Transactions on Communications, 1983

    work page 1983

  3. [3]

    Towards Understanding the Spectral Bias of Deep Learning

    Yuan Cao, Zhiying Fang, Yue Wu, Ding-Xuan Zhou, and Quanquan Gu. Towards understanding the spectral bias of deep learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01198, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1912

  4. [4]

    Fourier PINNs: From strong boundary conditions to adaptive fourier bases.arXiv:2410.03496, 2024

    Madison Cooley, Varun Shankar, Robert M Kirby, and Shandian Zhe. Fourier PINNs: From strong boundary conditions to adaptive fourier bases.arXiv:2410.03496, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equation.The Millennium Prize Problems, 2006

    Charles L Fefferman. Existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equation.The Millennium Prize Problems, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Hou and Pengfei Liu

    Thomas Y . Hou and Pengfei Liu. Self-similar singularity of a 1D model for the 3D axisymmetric Euler equations.Research in the Mathematical Sciences, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Fourth order time-stepping for low dispersion Korteweg-de Vries and nonlinear Schrödinger equation.Electron

    Christian Klein et al. Fourth order time-stepping for low dispersion Korteweg-de Vries and nonlinear Schrödinger equation.Electron. Trans. Numer . Anal, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs.JMLR, 2023

    Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs.JMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    KANO: Kolmogorov-Arnold neural operator.arXiv:2509.16825, 2025

    Jin Lee, Ziming Liu, Xinling Yu, Yixuan Wang, Haewon Jeong, Murphy Yuezhen Niu, and Zheng Zhang. KANO: Kolmogorov-Arnold neural operator.arXiv:2509.16825, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differen- tial equations.arXiv:2010.08895, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  11. [11]

    Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations.ACM/JMS Journal of Data Science, 2021

    Zongyi Li, Hongkai Zheng, Nikola Kovachki, David Jin, Haoxuan Chen, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, and Anima Anandkumar. Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations.ACM/JMS Journal of Data Science, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    BACON: Band- limited coordinate networks for multiscale scene representation.CVPR, 2022

    David B Lindell, Dave Van Veen, Jeong Joon Park, and Gordon Wetzstein. BACON: Band- limited coordinate networks for multiscale scene representation.CVPR, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    KAN 2.0: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks Meet Science

    Ziming Liu, Pingchuan Ma, Yixuan Wang, Wojciech Matusik, and Max Tegmark. KAN 2.0: Kolmogorov-Arnold networks meet science.arXiv:2408.10205, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold networks.ICLR, 2025

    Ziming Liu, Yixuan Wang, Sachin Vaidya, Fabian Ruehle, James Halverson, Marin Soljaˇci´c, Thomas Y Hou, and Max Tegmark. KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold networks.ICLR, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Fourier continuation for exact derivative computation in physics-informed neural operators.arXiv:2211.15960, 2022

    Haydn Maust, Zongyi Li, Yixuan Wang, Daniel Leibovici, Oscar Bruno, Thomas Hou, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier continuation for exact derivative computation in physics-informed neural operators.arXiv:2211.15960, 2022. 10

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    On the spectral bias of neural networks.ICML, 2019

    Nasim Rahaman, Aristide Baratin, Devansh Arpit, Felix Draxler, Min Lin, Fred Hamprecht, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. On the spectral bias of neural networks.ICML, 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Random features for large-scale kernel machines.NeurIPS, 2007

    Ali Rahimi and Benjamin Recht. Random features for large-scale kernel machines.NeurIPS, 2007

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Weighted sums of random kitchen sinks: Replacing minimiza- tion with randomization in learning.NeurIPS, 2008

    Ali Rahimi and Benjamin Recht. Weighted sums of random kitchen sinks: Replacing minimiza- tion with randomization in learning.NeurIPS, 2008

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    Karniadakis

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    WIRE: Wavelet implicit neural representations.CVPR, 2023

    Vishwanath Saragadam, Daniel LeJeune, Jasper Tan, Guha Balakrishnan, Ashok Veeraraghavan, and Richard G Baraniuk. WIRE: Wavelet implicit neural representations.CVPR, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    A comprehensive and FAIR comparison between MLP and KAN representations for differential equations and operator networks.arXiv:2406.02917, 2024

    Khemraj Shukla, Juan Diego Toscano, Zhicheng Wang, Zongren Zou, and George Em Karni- adakis. A comprehensive and FAIR comparison between MLP and KAN representations for differential equations and operator networks.arXiv:2406.02917, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Vincent Sitzmann, Julien N. P. Martel, Alexander W. Bergman, David B. Lindell, and Gordon Wetzstein. Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions.NeurIPS, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Exact imposition of boundary conditions with distance functions in physics-informed deep neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2022

    Natarajan Sukumar and Ankit Srivastava. Exact imposition of boundary conditions with distance functions in physics-informed deep neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Barron, and Ren Ng

    Matthew Tancik, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ren Ng. Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains.NeurIPS, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    From PINNs to PIKANs: Recent advances in physics-informed machine learning.Machine Learning for Computational Science and Engineering, 2025

    Juan Diego Toscano, Vivek Oommen, Alan John Varghese, Zongren Zou, Nazanin Ah- madi Daryakenari, Chenxi Wu, and George Em Karniadakis. From PINNs to PIKANs: Recent advances in physics-informed machine learning.Machine Learning for Computational Science and Engineering, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    On the eigenvector bias of Fourier feature networks: From regression to solving multi-scale PDEs with physics-informed neural networks

    Sifan Wang, Hanwen Wang, and Paris Perdikaris. On the eigenvector bias of Fourier feature networks: From regression to solving multi-scale PDEs with physics-informed neural networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    PirateNets: Physics-informed deep learning with residual adaptive networks.JMLR, 2024

    Sifan Wang, Bowen Li, Yuhan Chen, and Paris Perdikaris. PirateNets: Physics-informed deep learning with residual adaptive networks.JMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    An expert’s guide to training physics-informed neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2024

    Sifan Wang, Shyam Sankaran, Hanwen Wang, and Paris Perdikaris. An expert’s guide to training physics-informed neural networks.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    On the expressiveness and spectral bias of kans.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01803, 2024

    Yixuan Wang, Jonathan W Siegel, Ziming Liu, and Thomas Y Hou. On the expressiveness and spectral bias of KANs.arXiv:2410.01803, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Yixuan Wang, Jiajie Chen, and Thomas Y . Hou. High precision PINNs in unbounded domains: Application to singularity formulation in PDEs.arXiv:2506.19243, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Asymptotic self-similar blow-up profile for three-dimensional axisymmetric Euler equations using neural networks

    Yongji Wang, C-Y Lai, Javier Gómez-Serrano, and Tristan Buckmaster. Asymptotic self-similar blow-up profile for three-dimensional axisymmetric Euler equations using neural networks. Physical Review Letters, 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Discovery of unstable singularities,

    Yongji Wang, Mehdi Bennani, James Martens, Sébastien Racanière, Sam Blackwell, Alex Matthews, Stanislav Nikolov, Gonzalo Cao-Labora, Daniel S Park, Martin Arjovsky, et al. Discovery of unstable singularities.arXiv:2509.14185, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Frequency Principle: Fourier Analysis Sheds Light on Deep Neural Networks

    Zhi-Qin John Xu, Yaoyu Zhang, Tao Luo, Yanyang Xiao, and Zheng Ma. Frequency principle: Fourier analysis sheds light on deep neural networks.arXiv:1901.06523, 2019. 11

    work page Pith review arXiv 1901

  34. [34]

    Training behavior of deep neural network in frequency domain.International Conference on Neural Information Processing, 2019

    Zhi-Qin John Xu, Yaoyu Zhang, and Yanyang Xiao. Training behavior of deep neural network in frequency domain.International Conference on Neural Information Processing, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    we were unable to find the license for the dataset we used

    Tianchi Yu, Yiming Qi, Ivan Oseledets, and Shiyi Chen. Spectral informed neural networks. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 2025. 12 Vanilla MLP RFF beignet Ground truth Figure 3: Direct 256×256 RGB image fitting. The beignet representation fits the image nearly exactly under the same 2000-step optimization budget, while using a smaller de...

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Justification: The paper does not involve crowdsourcing, research with human subjects, participant data, or human-subject experiments

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...

    work page