Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Neural Port-Hamiltonian Differential Algebraic Equations for Compositional Learning of Electrical Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Embedding circuit topology and algebraic constraints in a port-Hamiltonian neural network yields electrical-network models that beat black-box neural ODEs by an order of magnitude on long-horizon prediction.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new model class for constrained dynamics, but the numerical claims rest on a single weak baseline and an untested invertibility heuristic. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11215 v3 pith:SM4RAEOW submitted 2024-12-15 cs.LG cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

Cyrus Neary , Nathan Tsao , Ufuk Topcu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.SYeess.SY MSC 34A0965L8068T07
keywords neuralport-Hamiltoniansystemsdifferentialalgebraicequationscompositionallearningelectricalnetworksordinaryphysics-informedmachineindexreductionconstraineddynamical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces N-PHDAEs (neural port-Hamiltonian differential algebraic equations), a physics-informed approach to learning models of electrical networks from trajectory data while respecting the algebraic constraints that couplings between components impose. The key design move is to let the known circuit topology fix the interconnection structure of a port-Hamiltonian DAE and to parameterize only the unknown component relations (resistor, capacitor, inductor) with neural networks. Training and inference then use automatic differentiation to perform index reduction, converting the neural DAE into an equivalent neural ODE that can be integrated and backpropagated with standard tools. The authors report that, on the nonlinear FitzHugh-Nagumo circuit, the N-PHDAE improves long-horizon prediction accuracy and constraint satisfaction by an order of magnitude over a black-box neural ODE, and that separately trained submodels compose into an accurate simulator of a ten-node DC microgrid with no additional training. If these results hold, the method offers a practical route to data-driven, constraint-aware models of large coupled physical systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the port-Hamiltonian DAE (1) specialized to electrical networks in (2): the matrices $E$, $J$, and $B$ are constructed from the component incidence matrices of the circuit graph, so the topology enters exactly and the unknown physics is confined to the effort $z_\theta$ and dissipation $r_\theta$, each parameterized by a neural network. The algorithmic hinge is the index-reduction formula (6), which turns the semi-explicit DAE (3) into an equivalent neural ODE, $\dot w = -(\partial h_\theta/\partial w)^{-1}(\partial h_\theta/\partial v\, f_\theta + \partial h_\theta/\partial u\, \dot u + \partial_t h_\theta)$, using Jacobians computed by automatic differentiation, so no finite-difference errors enter and standard neural-ODE solvers apply. The compositional capability rests on the interconnection matrix $A_\lambda$ in (8), which adds coupling edges between subsystems and stacks their states and matrices diagonally to form a composite N-PHDAE that uses the same training algorithm. The loss in (7) pairs a state mean-squared-error term with an algebraic-equation penalty, which the authors use both to encourage constraint feasibility and to keep the Jacobian $\partial h_\theta/\partial w$ invertible in practice.

What would settle it

Run the training procedure on a circuit where the learned algebraic equations drive $\partial h_\theta/\partial w$ toward singularity, for example by dropping the algebraic-equation penalty during early training or by choosing an adversarial initialization, and observe whether the index-reduced ODE in (6) becomes undefined or the gradients diverge. A softer check is to compare against a black-box neural ODE trained with the same algebraic constraints as penalty terms: if the order-of-magnitude gap disappears, the benefit would come from the extra loss signal rather than from the port-Hamiltonian structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that embedding a neural network inside a port-Hamiltonian differential algebraic equation produces models of electrical networks that are both accurate and respectful of the system's algebraic constraints, where a structure-agnostic neural ODE drifts off the constraint manifold over long horizons. The network does not learn the full dynamics from scratch: the flow matrix, interconnection matrix, and port matrix come exactly from the circuit graph's incidence matrices, and the neural networks enter only as the unknown effort and dissipation terms, including the resistor voltage-current relation, the capacitor voltage-charge relation, and the inductor Hamiltonian. The algorithmic step that makes this trainable is the index-reduction formula (6), which differentiates the learned algebraic equations once and solves for the algebraic variables' dynamics through the inverse Jacobian, all computed by automatic differentiation; the result is an equivalent neural ODE whose states keep their physical meaning. The experimental case is that the N-PHDAE satisfies the true algebraic equations roughly an order of magnitude better than the baseline, that its long-horizon predictions stay accurate, and that a composition of ten individually trained distributed-generation-unit models interconnected by transmission lines simulates a complete-graph microgrid without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the learned algebraic equations keep their Jacobian with respect to the algebraic variables invertible throughout training and evaluation, and the paper guarantees this only empirically, through a penalty term in the loss, not by construction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central results hold, a learned model can carry physics constraints as part of its architecture rather than as post-hoc penalties, which the paper credits for its order-of-magnitude edge in long-horizon accuracy.
  • A library of pre-trained component models could be assembled in new topologies through an interconnection matrix and simulated immediately, making system-level predictions possible without system-level training data.
  • Because the index-reduction step applies to any index-1 semi-explicit DAE, the same training pipeline would extend to other port-Hamiltonian or constrained dynamical systems beyond circuits.
  • The near-satisfaction of the algebraic equations implies learned trajectories stay close to the physically feasible manifold, which the paper identifies as the reason predictions do not degrade over a 200-second horizon.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper assumes the interconnection topology is known in advance and learns only the component relations; learning the coupling constraints themselves, which the conclusion names as future work, would widen the method to systems without a known schematic.
  • The algebraic constraints are enforced softly, through a penalty, rather than exactly, so the method is best described as guiding trajectories toward the constraint manifold; architectural guarantees of Jacobian invertibility or constraint satisfaction would require a different design.
  • A follow-up experiment pitting the N-PHDAE against a black-box neural ODE trained with the same algebraic constraints as penalty terms would isolate how much of the gain comes from the port-Hamiltonian structure and how much from the extra loss signal.
  • If the microgrid composition result scales, component-level data collection could replace system-level data collection for simulation of power networks, since only the interconnection matrix would change between configurations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces neural port-Hamiltonian differential algebraic equations (N-PHDAEs), a class of models in which the unknown effort and dissipation terms of a port-Hamiltonian DAE are represented by neural networks while the interconnection structure is taken as known. The proposed training procedure uses automatic differentiation to perform index reduction, converting the DAE into a neural ODE of the form (6), and optimizes a loss that combines state prediction error with an algebraic-equation penalty. The authors report that N-PHDAEs outperform a black-box N-ODE on a FitzHugh-Nagumo circuit and that individually trained DGU models can be composed through an interconnection matrix to predict DC microgrid dynamics. The paper includes code and appendices with experimental details.

Significance. If the technical gaps are closed, N-PHDAEs would be a useful addition to the physics-informed learning literature: they provide a principled way to learn constrained dynamics from topology, preserve the physical interpretation of algebraic variables, and enable composition of learned subsystem models. The explicit use of index reduction via automatic differentiation, the automated construction of E, J, B from incidence data, and the open-source implementation are concrete strengths. However, the current evidence is simulation-only, generated from the same PHDAE class used by the model, and the load-bearing invertibility and equivalence assumptions are not established; these limitations materially affect the strength of the accuracy and composition claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-B, §IV-C, Eq. (6)] The central index-reduction formula (6) is valid only if ∂hθ/∂w is invertible on the relevant domain, and the paper concedes in §IV-C that this 'is not necessarily the case when hθ is parameterized as a neural network.' The claim in §IV-B that the N-PHDAEs 'will always be index-1 equations' is a statement about the true PHDAE under topological conditions, not about the learned hθ; the algebraic equation penalty in (7) provides no certificate of invertibility. The concern is concrete: in the printed Eq. (2), the voltage-source current jV appears only in the differential rows, while the algebraic rows used in Eq. (12) depend on e and not on jV, making ∂hθ/∂jV structurally zero for circuits with voltage sources. The composition in §V adds a further layer: the composite algebraic Jacobian is not shown to remain invertible when subsystems are coupled. As the manuscript stands, training and inference can break down without warning. Please either give verifiable conditions on hθ that guarantee invertibility during training and composition, or provide systematic empirical evidence (Jacobian condition-number monitoring, multiple seeds, failure analysis) that the heuristic is reliable.
  2. [§IV-B, Eq. (6), §IV-C, Eq. (7)] The paper calls (6) an 'equivalent' ODE, but equivalence holds only when the learned algebraic equations are satisfied exactly at the initial condition and hθ is the true algebraic constraint. The loss (7) only penalizes hθ at sampled states and does not project the initial state onto hθ=0; consequently the reduced ODE preserves the initial algebraic residual rather than enforcing the constraint. This is a second load-bearing gap between the derivation and the reported constraint-satisfaction results, where the metric is the true h evaluated on predictions, not the learned hθ. Please state the precise equivalence conditions and report how closely initial conditions satisfy hθ=0 in the experiments.
  3. [§VI, especially §VI-A] The evaluation compares N-PHDAE only with a black-box N-ODE. Since the related work explicitly positions against neural DAE approaches such as DAE-PINN, MINN, and neural DAEs, the claimed 'order of magnitude improvement' is demonstrated only against the weakest baseline and does not isolate the contribution of index reduction, constraint parameterization, or composition. Adding at least one learned-DAE baseline and an ablation with the physics prior removed would make the central claim proportionate.
  4. [§V, §VI-B] The compositional validation uses known interconnection matrices and known PHDAE models for transmission lines; only the DGU component models are learned, and the test configurations are sampled from the same simulation family used for training data. This demonstrates feasibility of a particular composition pipeline but does not yet support the stronger claim of compositional generalization to genuinely unseen component types or topologies. Please state the scope of the compositional claim and, if possible, test compositions with untrained topology changes or learned line models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§VI-B] The background citation for DC microgrids appears to be [3], but the microgrid model is later attributed to [4] in Appendix D; please correct the citation.
  2. [Figures 6 and 7] The captions for Figure 6 and Figure 7 are duplicated in the text, and the Figure 7 caption appears twice with inconsistent noise notation (ω²=0.01 vs σ²=0.01); these should be consolidated and standardized.
  3. [§IV-C and Appendix B] The loss hyperparameters are reported inconsistently: the main text gives α=0.01, while Appendix B describes α=0 for the first 25,000 epochs and then α=1, β=0.01; please state the exact schedule used for the reported figures.
  4. [Appendix B] The experiments report a single training run with no random-seed information or error bars, which is not sufficient to support the strength of the accuracy claims; please add multiple seeds and variance estimates.
  5. [§III, Eq. (2)] The matrix dimensions in Eq. (2) are not defined consistently with the stated dimensions of A_s and the state vector; please revise the notation so that the block structure of E, J, and B is explicit and dimensionally correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: N-PHDAE predictions are validated on held-out simulated trajectories, and the index-reduction step is standard external mathematics.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained: (i) the circuit topology supplies the fixed matrices E, J, and B; (ii) neural networks parameterize only the unknown component relations g_theta, q_theta, and H_theta; (iii) the semi-explicit DAE is reduced to an ODE by the textbook index-reduction formula (6), whose validity rests on the external reference [38] (Wanner and Hairer), not on the authors' prior work; and (iv) the training loss (7) fits state predictions to true next states from simulated trajectories, while the reported constraint metric evaluates the ground-truth algebraic equations h_true on predicted states (Figures 5-7), not merely the learned h_theta. The target y = x(t+T) is a held-out simulated state, so the 'prediction accuracy' claim is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The compositional microgrid experiment likewise evaluates a composite PHDAE formed from known transmission-line models and learned DGU models without retraining on the composite output, against a separately simulated composite ground truth. Self-citations ([6], [7], [27], [28]) appear only in related-work positioning and do not provide the index-reduction formula, the PHDAE structure, or the data-generation equations; those come from external references ([13], [37], [36], [38]). The admitted tension between the topology-based index-1 claim in Section IV-B and the possible singularity of the learned Jacobian dh_theta/dw in Section IV-C is a robustness and correctness limitation, explicitly acknowledged by the authors and deferred to future work; it is not a circularity, because the method's validity does not presuppose the conclusion it is trying to establish. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central contribution relies on standard DAE theory (index reduction) and on the availability of circuit topology. The main ad hoc element is the empirical enforcement of Jacobian invertibility for the learned algebraic equations.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss weights α, β = α: 0 then 1; β: 1 then 0.01
    Chosen by hand with a fixed switch after 25000 epochs to first enforce constraint satisfaction then fit state trajectories (§IV-C, Appendix B).
  • Learning rates = N-PHDAE: 0.0001; baseline N-ODE: 0.001
    Selected via coarse hyperparameter sweep to maximize performance of each algorithm (Appendix B).
  • Network architecture = MLP with 2 hidden layers of 100 nodes, ReLU
    Fixed across models; not swept (Appendix B).
  • Training length and batch size = 100000 epochs, batch size 128
    Fixed for all experiments (Appendix B).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Electrical networks can be modeled as port-Hamiltonian DAEs of the form (2) with component-specific incidence matrices (from [13]).
    Used throughout §IV to construct E, J, B from circuit topology; requires capacitors, inductors, resistors, voltage/current sources modeled in this particular PHDAE structure.
  • domain assumption The DAE is index-1 and can be written in semi-explicit form, with E having identifiable zero rows for algebraic variables.
    Needed for the index-reduction formula (6); asserted in §IV-B and Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper The Jacobian ∂h_theta/∂w is invertible during training.
    Acknowledged in §IV-C as not guaranteed; only approximately enforced via the algebraic equation penalty in the loss.
  • domain assumption Interconnection topology is known a priori.
    The method derives E, J, B from known incidence matrices; unknown topology is listed as future work (§V, §VII).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural Port-Hamiltonian Differential Algebraic Equations for Compositional Learning of Electrical Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SM4RAEOW

@misc{pith2026241211215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural Port-Hamiltonian Differential Algebraic Equations for Compositional Learning of Electrical Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SM4RAEOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11215}
}
read the original abstract

We develop compositional learning algorithms for coupled dynamical systems, with a particular focus on electrical networks. While deep learning has proven effective at modeling complex relationships from data, compositional couplings between system components typically introduce algebraic constraints on state variables, posing challenges to many existing data-driven approaches to modeling dynamical systems. Towards developing deep learning models for constrained dynamical systems, we introduce neural port-Hamiltonian differential algebraic equations (N-PHDAEs), which use neural networks to parameterize unknown terms in both the differential and algebraic components of a port-Hamiltonian DAE. To train these models, we propose an algorithm that uses automatic differentiation to perform index reduction, automatically transforming the neural DAE into an equivalent system of neural ordinary differential equations (N-ODEs), for which established model inference and backpropagation methods exist. Experiments simulating the dynamics of nonlinear circuits exemplify the benefits of our approach: the proposed N-PHDAE model achieves an order of magnitude improvement in prediction accuracy and constraint satisfaction when compared to a baseline N-ODE over long prediction time horizons. We also validate the compositional capabilities of our approach through experiments on a simulated DC microgrid: we train individual N-PHDAE models for separate grid components, before coupling them to accurately predict the behavior of larger-scale networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed neural port-Hamiltonian differential algebraic equations (N-PHDAE). The proposed algorithm uses the topology of the subsystem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The compositionality of the proposed N-PHDAEs (§V). By coupling individually trained N-PHDAE models of subsystem dynamics, we obtain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constructing the matrix terms in the N-PHDAE from the interconnection topology of the system components. In the context of electrical circuits, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: The FitzHugh-Nagumo circuit. Bottom: Predicted voltage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: The mean square error of the state predictions, as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: N-PHDAE predictions of an individual DGU state trajectory. Fig. 7. Top: N-PHDAE predictions of an individual DGU state trajectory. BttMd d iltif d tth lbi Fig. 7. Top: N-PHDAE predictions of an individual DGU state trajecto BttMd d iltif d tth lb Fig. 7. Top: NPHD…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Data-driven Bayesian Control of Port-Hamiltonian Systems

    Thomas Beckers. “Data-driven Bayesian Control of Port-Hamiltonian Systems”. In:2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE. 2023, pp. 8708–8713

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Version 0.3.13

    James Bradbury et al.JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs. Version 0.3.13. 2018.URL:http : / / github.com/jax-ml/jax

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Neural ordinary differential equations

    Ricky TQ Chen et al. “Neural ordinary differential equations”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems31 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    A robust consensus algorithm for current sharing and voltage regulation in DC microgrids

    Michele Cucuzzella et al. “A robust consensus algorithm for current sharing and voltage regulation in DC microgrids”. In:IEEE Trans- actions on Control Systems Technology27.4 (2018), pp. 1583–1595

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Port-Hamiltonian neural networks for learning explicit time-dependent dynamical systems

    Shaan A Desai et al. “Port-Hamiltonian neural networks for learning explicit time-dependent dynamical systems”. In:Physical Review E 104.3 (2021), p. 034312

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    How to Learn and Generalize From Three Minutes of Data: Physics-Constrained and Uncertainty-Aware Neural Stochastic Differential Equations

    Franck Djeumou, Cyrus Neary, and Ufuk Topcu. “How to Learn and Generalize From Three Minutes of Data: Physics-Constrained and Uncertainty-Aware Neural Stochastic Differential Equations”. In: Conference on Robot Learning. V ol. 229. PMLR. 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Neural Networks with Physics-Informed Architectures and Constraints for Dynamical Systems Modeling

    Franck Djeumou et al. “Neural Networks with Physics-Informed Architectures and Constraints for Dynamical Systems Modeling”. In: Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference. V ol. 168. PMLR. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2009

    Vincent Duindam et al.Modeling and control of complex physical systems: the port-Hamiltonian approach. Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Port-Hamiltonian Neural ODE Networks on Lie Groups for Robot Dynamics Learning and Control

    Thai Duong et al. “Port-Hamiltonian Neural ODE Networks on Lie Groups for Robot Dynamics Learning and Control”. In:IEEE Transactions on Robotics40 (2024), pp. 3695–3715.DOI:10 . 1109/TRO.2024.3428433

    2024

  2. [10]

    Impulses and Physiological States in Theoretical Models of Nerve Membrane

    Richard FitzHugh. “Impulses and Physiological States in Theoretical Models of Nerve Membrane”. In:Biophysical Journal1.6 (1961), pp. 445–466

    1961

  3. [11]

    Distributed neural network control with depend- ability guarantees: a compositional port-Hamiltonian approach

    Luca Furieri et al. “Distributed neural network control with depend- ability guarantees: a compositional port-Hamiltonian approach”. In: Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference. V ol. 168. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Hamilto- nian Neural Networks

    Samuel Greydanus, Misko Dzamba, and Jason Yosinski. “Hamilto- nian Neural Networks”. In:Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems. V ol. 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Dynamic iteration schemes and port- Hamiltonian formulation in coupled differential-algebraic equation circuit simulation

    Michael G ¨unther et al. “Dynamic iteration schemes and port- Hamiltonian formulation in coupled differential-algebraic equation circuit simulation”. In:International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications49.2 (2021), pp. 430–452.DOI:10 . 1002 / cta . 2870

    2021

  6. [14]

    Solving high- dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning

    Jiequn Han, Arnulf Jentzen, and E Weinan. “Solving high- dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115.34 (2018), pp. 8505–8510

    2018

  7. [15]

    Version 0.0.13

    Tom Hennigan et al.Haiku: Sonnet for JAX. Version 0.0.13. 2020. URL:http://github.com/deepmind/dm-haiku

    2020

  8. [16]

    MINN: Learning the dynamics of differential- algebraic equations and application to battery modeling

    Yicun Huang et al. “MINN: Learning the dynamics of differential- algebraic equations and application to battery modeling”. In:IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence(2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    FitzHugh-Nagumo model

    E. M. Izhikevich and R. FitzHugh. “FitzHugh-Nagumo model”. In: Scholarpedia1.9 (2006). revision #123664, p. 1349.DOI:10 . 4249/scholarpedia.1349

    2006

  10. [18]

    Physics-informed machine learning

    George Em Karniadakis et al. “Physics-informed machine learning”. In:Nature Reviews Physics3.6 (2021), pp. 422–440

    2021

  11. [19]

    On neural differential equations

    Patrick Kidger. “On neural differential equations”. PhD thesis. Uni- versity of Oxford, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Neural Differential Algebraic Equations

    James Koch et al. “Neural Differential Algebraic Equations”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12938(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    PDE-Net 2.0: Learning PDEs from data with a numeric-symbolic hybrid deep network

    Zichao Long, Yiping Lu, and Bin Dong. “PDE-Net 2.0: Learning PDEs from data with a numeric-symbolic hybrid deep network”. In: Journal of Computational Physics399 (2019), p. 108925

    2019

  14. [22]

    Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. “Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse design

    Lu Lu et al. “Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse design”. In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing43.6 (2021), B1105–B1132

    2021

  16. [24]

    Structure-preserving discretization for port-Hamiltonian descriptor systems

    V olker Mehrmann and Riccardo Morandin. “Structure-preserving discretization for port-Hamiltonian descriptor systems”. In:2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE. 2019, pp. 6863–6868

    2019

  17. [25]

    DAE-PINN: a physics-informed neural network model for simulating differential algebraic equations with application to power networks

    Christian Moya and Guang Lin. “DAE-PINN: a physics-informed neural network model for simulating differential algebraic equations with application to power networks”. In:Neural Computing and Applications35.5 (2023), pp. 3789–3804

    2023

  18. [26]

    An Active Pulse Transmission Line Simulating Nerve Axon

    J. Nagumo, S. Arimoto, and S. Yoshizawa. “An Active Pulse Transmission Line Simulating Nerve Axon”. In:Proceedings of the IRE50.10 (1962), pp. 2061–2070

    1962

  19. [27]

    Engineering AI systems and AI for engineering: compositionality and physics in learning

    Cyrus Neary. “Engineering AI systems and AI for engineering: compositionality and physics in learning”. PhD thesis. The University of Texas at Austin, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Compositional learning of dynamical system models using port-hamiltonian neural networks

    Cyrus Neary and Ufuk Topcu. “Compositional learning of dynamical system models using port-hamiltonian neural networks”. In:Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference. V ol. 168. PMLR. 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Total Energy Shaping with Neural Interconnection and Damping Assignment - Passivity Based Control

    Santiago Sanchez-Escalonilla Plaza, Rodolfo Reyes-B ´aez, and Bayu Jayawardhana. “Total Energy Shaping with Neural Interconnection and Damping Assignment - Passivity Based Control”. In:Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference. V ol. 168. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning

    Christopher Rackauckas et al. “Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Deep hidden physics models: Deep learning of nonlinear partial differential equations

    Maziar Raissi. “Deep hidden physics models: Deep learning of nonlinear partial differential equations”. In:The Journal of Machine Learning Research19.1 (2018), pp. 932–955

    2018

  24. [32]

    Physics- informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differen- tial equations

    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 differen- tial equations”. In:Journal of Computational physics378 (2019), pp. 686–707

    2019

  25. [33]

    DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations

    Justin Sirignano and Konstantinos Spiliopoulos. “DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations”. In: Journal of Computational Physics375 (2018), pp. 1339–1364

    2018

  26. [34]

    Physics-constrained learning of PDE systems with uncertainty quantified port- Hamiltonian models

    Kaiyuan Tan, Peilun Li, and Thomas Beckers. “Physics-constrained learning of PDE systems with uncertainty quantified port- Hamiltonian models”. In:Learning for Dynamics and Control Con- ference. V ol. 242. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Trefethen and David Bau III.Numerical Linear Algebra

    Lloyd N. Trefethen and David Bau III.Numerical Linear Algebra. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    Port-Hamiltonian systems theory: An introductory overview

    Arjan Van Der Schaft, Dimitri Jeltsema, et al. “Port-Hamiltonian systems theory: An introductory overview”. In:Foundations and Trends in Systems and Control1.2-3 (2014), pp. 173–378

    2014

  29. [37]

    Port-Hamiltonian systems on graphs

    Arjan J Van der Schaft and Bernhard M Maschke. “Port-Hamiltonian systems on graphs”. In:SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 51.2 (2013), pp. 906–937

    2013

  30. [38]

    Gerhard Wanner and Ernst Hairer.Solving ordinary differential equations II. V ol. 375. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1996

    1996

  31. [39]

    Feasibility study of neural ode and dae modules for power system dynamic component modeling

    Tannan Xiao et al. “Feasibility study of neural ode and dae modules for power system dynamic component modeling”. In:IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems38.3 (2022), pp. 2666–2678

    2022

  32. [40]

    Neural Energy Casimir Control for Port-Hamiltonian Systems

    Liang Xu, Muhammad Zakwan, and Giancarlo Ferrari-Trecate. “Neural Energy Casimir Control for Port-Hamiltonian Systems”. In:IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE. 2022, pp. 4053–4058

    2022

  33. [41]

    Benchmarking Energy-Conserving Neural Networks for Learning Dynamics from Data

    Yaofeng Desmond Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty. “Benchmarking Energy-Conserving Neural Networks for Learning Dynamics from Data”. In:Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference. V ol. 144. PMLR, 2021. APPENDIX A. Transforming the N-PHDAE into Semi-Explicit Form We ...

    2021

  34. [42]

    For example, renewable energy sources can act as the power generation unit in the DGU model

    Distributed Generation Unit Model:Distributed gener- ation units (DGU) are small-scale electricity generators that are an alternative to traditional power plants. For example, renewable energy sources can act as the power generation unit in the DGU model. The equivalent PHDAE ...

  35. [43]

    Transmission Line Model:The transmission lines in- terconnect two distributed generation units and model the grid loads. The equivalent PHDAE of the transmission line model has incidence matrices: AC =   0 0 0   , AR =   1 −1 0   , AL =   0 −1 1   , AV =   0 0 0 ...

  36. [44]

    In the compositional learning experiments, the microgrid has a complete graph configuration with 10 nodes, with DGUs at the nodes and transmission lines at the edges

    Obtaining the Microgrid with Composition:Towards simulating microgrids via composition, we need an in- terconnection matrixA λ which specifies how the various distributed generation units and transmission lines are in- terconnected. In the compositional learning experiments, t...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.