Reproducing a current arXiv PINN paper end-to-end

Closing capstone. Less a new physics topic, more a META lesson: "you now have the toolkit — here's how to read the literature." Pick a recent published PINN paper, walk through its central recipe, reproduce the central benchmark in-browser. The paper of choice: Bin Waheed, Haghighat, Alkhalifah, Song, Hao 2021. PINNeik: Eikonal solution using physics-informed neural networks. Computers & Geosciences 155, 104833. arXiv: 2007.08330.

The paper in 4 sentences

• The eikonal equation $|\nabla T(x)|^2 = 1 / c(x)^2$ has a SINGULARITY at the source point $x_s$ where $T \to 0$ — vanilla PINNs trained on the eikonal residual diverge or oscillate near $x_s$.
• Treister-Haber 2018 introduced the FACTORED FORMULATION $T(x) = T_0(x) \cdot (1 + \tau(x; \theta))$ where $T_0(x) = |x - x_s| / c_0$ is the homogeneous-medium analytical solution at velocity $c_0 = c(x_s)$. Now $\tau(x_s) = 0$ resolves the singularity, and the network learns the SMOOTH correction $\tau$ instead of the singular $T$.
• PINNeik combines the factored formulation with standard PINN training: a small MLP for $\tau$, eikonal-residual loss, and Adam optimisation. The paper reports 0.5-2% RMS error vs FSM ground truth on standard benchmarks.
• The PINN-eikonal forward solver is then drop-in usable as the forward operator in inversion problems (§10.3 ANT, §10.7 basin tomography, §7.5 hypocentre location), 100× faster than FSM at scale.

The reproduction recipe

Bin Waheed et al's Section 3.1 benchmark:

• Domain: 1 × 1 km
• Velocity field: $c(x, z) = 2.0 + 0.5 \exp\bigl(-((x-0.5)^2 + (z-0.5)^2) / (2 \cdot 0.2^2)\bigr)$ km/s (peak 2.5 at centre)
• Source at (0.1, 0.1)
• PINN architecture: small MLP, factored formulation $T(x) = T_0(x) \cdot (1 + \tau(x; \theta))$
• Loss: eikonal-residual at collocation points + source condition $T(x_s) = 0$
• Optimizer: Adam with learning-rate schedule

Try it:

The widget trains a small MLP (2 hidden layers × 16 neurons × tanh) for 80 epochs of Adam on 80 collocation points/epoch. Comparison to FSM ground truth is computed pixel-wise.

Four panels:

• FSM ground-truth: T(x, z) computed by classical FSM on the 41×41 grid. Yellow star = source.
• PINN-predicted T(x, z): same grid, evaluated from the trained MLP via the factored formula.
• Error map: T_PINN − T_FSM, diverging colormap. Where do the largest errors live? (Typically: corners far from source where the network has seen fewer collocation points.)
• Training loss: log-scale loss vs epoch. Monotonically decreasing on a successful train.

Below the panels, a summary box reports training hyper-parameters, final loss, and travel-time RMSE vs FSM as a percentage of the FSM range.

Why this is a good reproduction target

• Self-contained. No external dataset; truth is FSM-computable on the same grid.
• Tractable in-browser. 16-neuron MLP with finite-difference gradient + Adam fits in JavaScript without a heavy DL framework.
• Clear quality metric. Pixel-wise RMSE vs FSM is unambiguous.
• Pedagogically rich. The factored formulation, the eikonal-residual loss, the source-condition penalty are all individually instructive.

How to read PINN papers in general

Generalising from this reproduction, here's a checklist for reading any new PINN paper:

• What PDE / ODE is the residual? Eikonal? Wave? Heat? Navier-Stokes? Identifying the physics tells you what classical solvers are the baseline.
• What architecture? Plain MLP? Fourier features (§4.2)? SIREN (§4.3)? Multi-scale (§4.4)? Each has known strengths/weaknesses for different PDE classes.
• What loss-balancing? Hand-tuned λ ratios? Adaptive (NTK, GradNorm)? Annealed (§9.2)? The balancing strategy is often the single biggest factor in convergence.
• What initialisation? Random? Pre-trained on simpler problem (§4.5 transfer learning)? Hard-constraint architecture (§4.5 hard BC)? The init matters for breaking pathologies.
• What's the BENCHMARK? What classical solver does the paper compare against? What error metric? What scale? Reproducing the benchmark is the only way to know if the paper's claims hold up.

Part 10 wrap-up

Part 10 walked eight real-field capstones:

• §10.1 Marmousi: classical FWI testbed, 7-param 4-layer recovery with PINN-augmented prior.
• §10.2 Microseismic monitoring: passive-seismic hypocentre location with bootstrap UQ.
• §10.3 USArray ANT: continental-scale ambient-noise tomography with Tikhonov LS.
• §10.4 AVO: elastic 3-term inversion with Gardner-prior PINN regulariser.
• §10.5 Sub-salt: GoM-class FWI with salt-prior + well-log priors.
• §10.6 Sleipner 4D: time-lapse CO₂ plume monitoring with time-lapse prior.
• §10.7 Eikonal basin tomography: PINN-eikonal-style forward + Tikhonov inversion.
• §10.8 (this section) — Reproducing PINNeik: end-to-end paper reproduction.

Where to go next

• Active research areas: generative-prior FWI (Mosser 2020), Bayesian PINNs at scale (Yang-Karniadakis 2021), full-waveform sub-salt inversion (Wu 2023), 4-D AMPLITUDE inversion for CO₂ monitoring (Furre 2017).
• Conferences to follow: SEG Annual Meeting, EAGE Annual Meeting, AGU Fall Meeting (deep-learning sessions). For ML methodology: NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR (Physics-informed ML workshops).
• Codebases to read: SimPEG (open-source geophysics), DeepXDE (PINN library), JAX-FEM (auto-diff finite-elements). Smith Group at Imperial College has open-source PINN-eikonal repos. The Helmholtz Institute publishes production FWI codes.
• Datasets to play with: Marmousi-II (open), BP-2004 salt (open), Sleipner (academic-licence via SINTEF), USArray (open via IRIS), SCSN microseismic catalog (open via SCEC).

Final word

This textbook covered ten parts: foundations (Parts 0-3), PINN architectures (Part 4), variational/training (Part 5), forward problems (Parts 6-7), inverse problems (Part 8), hybrid + UQ (Part 9), and capstones (Part 10). The recipe everywhere is the same:

• Identify the physics (PDE, conservation law, constraint).
• Encode it as a soft loss term (PINN residual) or hard architectural constraint.
• Train with appropriate sampling + balancing + optimisation.
• Compare to classical baselines on a clear benchmark.
• If the PINN wins on speed, generalisation, or differentiability — ship it.
• If not — learn why, iterate, or use the classical solver.

The toolkit is yours. Go build.

References

• Bin Waheed, U., Haghighat, E., Alkhalifah, T., Song, C., Hao, Q. (2021). PINNeik: Eikonal solution using physics-informed neural networks. Computers & Geosciences 155, 104833. arXiv:2007.08330. THE paper this widget reproduces.
• Treister, E., Haber, E. (2018). A fast marching algorithm for the factored eikonal equation. J. Comput. Phys. 324, 210–225. The factored formulation that PINNeik builds on.
• Smith, J.D., Azizzadenesheli, K., Ross, Z.E. (2021). EikoNet. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 59(12), 10685–10696. Independent PINN-eikonal at production scale.
• Karniadakis, G.E., Kevrekidis, I.G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., Yang, L. (2021). Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 422–440. The review that established the PINN-in-production framing.
• Cuomo, S., Di Cola, V.S., Giampaolo, F., Rozza, G., Raissi, M., Piccialli, F. (2022). Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks: where we are and what's next. J. Sci. Comput. 92(3), 88. Comprehensive review.