This article explores the implementation of gradient descent algorithms for minimizing global loss functions in neural networks, particularly in problems governed by Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. While gradient descent reliably converges, scalability issues arise when handling large domains with many coupled networks. To address this, a domain decomposition method (DDM) is introduced, enabling parallel optimization of local loss functions. The result is faster convergence, improved scalability, and a more efficient framework for training complex AI models.This article explores the implementation of gradient descent algorithms for minimizing global loss functions in neural networks, particularly in problems governed by Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. While gradient descent reliably converges, scalability issues arise when handling large domains with many coupled networks. To address this, a domain decomposition method (DDM) is introduced, enabling parallel optimization of local loss functions. The result is faster convergence, improved scalability, and a more efficient framework for training complex AI models.

Why Gradient Descent Converges (and Sometimes Doesn’t) in Neural Networks

2025/09/19 18:38

Abstract and 1. Introduction

1.1. Introductory remarks

1.2. Basics of neural networks

1.3. About the entropy of direct PINN methods

1.4. Organization of the paper

  1. Non-diffusive neural network solver for one dimensional scalar HCLs

    2.1. One shock wave

    2.2. Arbitrary number of shock waves

    2.3. Shock wave generation

    2.4. Shock wave interaction

    2.5. Non-diffusive neural network solver for one dimensional systems of CLs

    2.6. Efficient initial wave decomposition

  2. Gradient descent algorithm and efficient implementation

    3.1. Classical gradient descent algorithm for HCLs

    3.2. Gradient descent and domain decomposition methods

  3. Numerics

    4.1. Practical implementations

    4.2. Basic tests and convergence for 1 and 2 shock wave problems

    4.3. Shock wave generation

    4.4. Shock-Shock interaction

    4.5. Entropy solution

    4.6. Domain decomposition

    4.7. Nonlinear systems

  4. Conclusion and References

3. Gradient descent algorithm and efficient implementation

In this section we discuss the implementation of gradient descent algorithms for solving the minimization problems (11), (20) and (35). We note that these problems involve a global loss functional measuring the residue of HCL in the whole domain, as well Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, which results in training of a number of neural networks. In all the tests we have done, the gradient descent method converges and provides accurate results. We note also, that in problems with a large number of DLs, the global loss functional couples a large number of networks and the gradient descent algorithm may converge slowly. For these problems we present a domain decomposition method (DDM).

3.1. Classical gradient descent algorithm for HCLs

All the problems (11), (20) and (35) being similar, we will demonstrate in details the algorithm for the problem (20). We assume that the solution is initially constituted by i) D ∈ {1, 2, . . . , } entropic shock waves emanating from x1, . . . , xD, ii) an arbitrary number of rarefaction waves, and that iii) there is no shock generation for t ∈ [0, T].

\

\

3.2. Gradient descent and domain decomposition methods

Rather than minimizing the global loss function (21) (or (12), (36)), we here propose to decouple the optimization of the neural networks, and make it scalable. The approach is closely connected to domain decomposition methods (DDMs) Schwarz Waveform Relaxation (SWR) methods [21, 22, 23]. The resulting algorithm allows for embarrassingly parallel computation of minimization of local loss functions.

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ In conclusion, the DDM becomes relevant thanks to its scalability and for kDDMkLocal < kGlobal, which is expected for D large.

\

:::info Authors:

(1) Emmanuel LORIN, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, K1S 5B6 and Centre de Recherches Mathematiques, Universit´e de Montr´eal, Montreal, Canada, H3T 1J4 (elorin@math.carleton.ca);

(2) Arian NOVRUZI, a Corresponding Author from Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada (novruzi@uottawa.ca).

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC by 4.0 Deed (Attribution 4.0 International) license.

:::

\

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

UK crypto holders brace for FCA’s expanded regulatory reach

UK crypto holders brace for FCA’s expanded regulatory reach

The post UK crypto holders brace for FCA’s expanded regulatory reach appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. British crypto holders may soon face a very different landscape as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) moves to expand its regulatory reach in the industry. A new consultation paper outlines how the watchdog intends to apply its rulebook to crypto firms, shaping everything from asset safeguarding to trading platform operation. According to the financial regulator, these proposals would translate into clearer protections for retail investors and stricter oversight of crypto firms. UK FCA plans Until now, UK crypto users mostly encountered the FCA through rules on promotions and anti-money laundering checks. The consultation paper goes much further. It proposes direct oversight of stablecoin issuers, custodians, and crypto-asset trading platforms (CATPs). For investors, that means the wallets, exchanges, and coins they rely on could soon be subject to the same governance and resilience standards as traditional financial institutions. The regulator has also clarified that firms need official authorization before serving customers. This condition should, in theory, reduce the risk of sudden platform failures or unclear accountability. David Geale, the FCA’s executive director of payments and digital finance, said the proposals are designed to strike a balance between innovation and protection. He explained: “We want to develop a sustainable and competitive crypto sector – balancing innovation, market integrity and trust.” Geale noted that while the rules will not eliminate investment risks, they will create consistent standards, helping consumers understand what to expect from registered firms. Why does this matter for crypto holders? The UK regulatory framework shift would provide safer custody of assets, better disclosure of risks, and clearer recourse if something goes wrong. However, the regulator was also frank in its submission, arguing that no rulebook can eliminate the volatility or inherent risks of holding digital assets. Instead, the focus is on ensuring that when consumers choose to invest, they do…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/17 23:52