Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchMachine learning

analiza aiqbench

This research investigates the trade-offs between Cartesian and Levi-Civita coordinate systems for learning Hamiltonian dynamics in celestial mechanics, specifically addressing singularity regularization during close encounters. While regularized formulations significantly improve dynamical stability and energy conservation compared to standard methods, they introduce severe ill-conditioning that complicates neural network optimization via least-squares fitting. The study concludes that accurate residual learning remains an unresolved challenge despite these geometric improvements, offering a controlled falsification rather than a complete solution for learned close-encounter dynamics.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Dynamical and Optimization Trade-offs of Levi--Civita Coordinates for Learned Close-Encounter Dynamics

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2607.20235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Classical regularization removes the binary-collision singularity from the Kepler problem, but its value as a representation for learned Hamiltonian dynamics has not been systematically isolated. We compare Cartesian and planar Levi--Civita formulations of a perturbed Kepler system with a smooth quadrupole potential. With the perturbation supplied analytically, a Levi--Civita Hamiltonian splitting holds the maximum relative energy error near $2.1\times10^{-5}$ through eccentricity $e=0.99$, while the Cartesian splitting becomes unstable. This advantage persists at matched physical horizon and force-evaluation budget, where the regularized baseline is $3\times10^{-5}$, about $4.7$--$8.3$ orders of magnitude below the Cartesian arm depending on eccentricity. In held-out high-eccentricity tests with matched sampling, regularized models produce finite rollouts in $40/40$ runs versus $0/40$ for Cartesian. However, the fixed-shell construction supplies the regularized model with the exact initial orbit energy, and survival still carries $\mathcal{O}(1)$ energy error. Four neural residual objectives fail to approach the analytic result. Exact-feature controls show that the regularized residual is a four-monomial degree-6 polynomial that a direct least-squares solve fits to the baseline. The remaining exact-feature gap is due to severe raw-basis ill-conditioning: orthogonalization restores baseline fitting for L-BFGS in two iterations. Small MLPs remain at $\mathcal{O}(1)$ rollout error even after gauge symmetrization. Levi--Civita coordinates therefore improve dynamical conditioning while worsening raw-basis optimization conditioning; accurate neural residual learning remains unresolved. This is a controlled falsification-plus-trade-off study, not a solution to learned close-encounter dynamics.

Abstract:Classical regularization removes the binary-collision singularity from the Kepler problem, but its value as a representation for learned Hamiltonian dynamics has not been systematically isolated. We compare Cartesian and planar Levi--Civita formulations of a perturbed Kepler system with a smooth quadrupole potential. With the perturbation supplied analytically, a Levi--Civita Hamiltonian splitting holds the maximum relative energy error near $2.1\times10^{-5}$ through eccentricity $e=0.99$, while the Cartesian splitting becomes unstable. This advantage persists at matched physical horizon and force-evaluation budget, where the regularized baseline is $3\times10^{-5}$, about $4.7$--$8.3$ orders of magnitude below the Cartesian arm depending on eccentricity. In held-out high-eccentricity tests with matched sampling, regularized models produce finite rollouts in $40/40$ runs versus $0/40$ for Cartesian. However, the fixed-shell construction supplies the regularized model with the exact initial orbit energy, and survival still carries $\mathcal{O}(1)$ energy error. Four neural residual objectives fail to approach the analytic result. Exact-feature controls show that the regularized residual is a four-monomial degree-6 polynomial that a direct least-squares solve fits to the baseline. The remaining exact-feature gap is due to severe raw-basis ill-conditioning: orthogonalization restores baseline fitting for L-BFGS in two iterations. Small MLPs remain at $\mathcal{O}(1)$ rollout error even after gauge symmetrization. Levi--Civita coordinates therefore improve dynamical conditioning while worsening raw-basis optimization conditioning; accurate neural residual learning remains unresolved. This is a controlled falsification-plus-trade-off study, not a solution to learned close-encounter dynamics.

Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2607.20235 [physics.comp-ph]

(or arXiv:2607.20235v1 [physics.comp-ph] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20235 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 329 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe