Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
AI Research Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 75 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 26 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 104 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 170 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 468 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Discovery of Unstable Singularities (2509.14185v1)

Published 17 Sep 2025 in math.AP and physics.flu-dyn

Abstract: Whether singularities can form in fluids remains a foundational unanswered question in mathematics. This phenomenon occurs when solutions to governing equations, such as the 3D Euler equations, develop infinite gradients from smooth initial conditions. Historically, numerical approaches have primarily identified stable singularities. However, these are not expected to exist for key open problems, such as the boundary-free Euler and Navier-Stokes cases, where unstable singularities are hypothesized to play a crucial role. Here, we present the first systematic discovery of new families of unstable singularities. A stable singularity is a robust outcome, forming even if the initial state is slightly perturbed. In contrast, unstable singularities are exceptionally elusive; they require initial conditions tuned with infinite precision, being in a state of instability whereby infinitesimal perturbations immediately divert the solution from its blow-up trajectory. In particular, we present multiple new, unstable self-similar solutions for the incompressible porous media equation and the 3D Euler equation with boundary, revealing a simple empirical asymptotic formula relating the blow-up rate to the order of instability. Our approach combines curated machine learning architectures and training schemes with a high-precision Gauss-Newton optimizer, achieving accuracies that significantly surpass previous work across all discovered solutions. For specific solutions, we reach near double-float machine precision, attaining a level of accuracy constrained only by the round-off errors of the GPU hardware. This level of precision meets the requirements for rigorous mathematical validation via computer-assisted proofs. This work provides a new playbook for exploring the complex landscape of nonlinear partial differential equations (PDEs) and tackling long-standing challenges in mathematical physics.

Summary

  • The paper presents a novel computational framework to discover unstable self-similar singularities in fluid PDEs using high-precision PINNs and full-matrix Gauss-Newton optimization.
  • It demonstrates an empirical linear relationship between the inverse scaling rate and instability order in models like IPM, Boussinesq, and CCF.
  • The study emphasizes rigorous error control and the integration of mathematical structure in neural representations to achieve validation at machine precision.

Discovery of Unstable Singularities in Nonlinear Fluid PDEs

Introduction and Context

The formation of singularities in solutions to nonlinear PDEs governing fluid dynamics, such as the 3D Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, remains a central open problem in mathematical physics. Singularities correspond to finite-time blow-up of gradients or velocities from smooth initial data, with implications for the predictive validity of these models. While stable singularities—those robust to perturbations—have been numerically identified in several settings, the existence and structure of unstable singularities, which require infinitely precise initial conditions and are destroyed by infinitesimal perturbations, are far less understood. The paper "Discovery of Unstable Singularities" (2509.14185) presents a systematic computational framework for discovering and validating unstable self-similar singularities in canonical fluid models, including the incompressible porous media (IPM) and Boussinesq equations, and the 1D Córdoba-Córdoba-Fontelos (CCF) model.

Self-Similar Singularities and Instability Hierarchies

The approach is based on reformulating the governing PDEs in self-similar coordinates, parameterized by a scaling exponent λ\lambda that determines the spatiotemporal structure of the blow-up. The task reduces to identifying admissible λ\lambda values for which smooth self-similar profiles exist. The paper demonstrates the existence of a hierarchy of singularities, indexed by instability order nn, with each higher nn corresponding to an additional unstable direction in the linearized spectrum. Figure 1

Figure 2: Self-similar singularities for IPM and Boussinesq equations, showing spatial vorticity profiles, cross-sections, and the empirical linear relationship between inverse scaling rate and instability order.

The results reveal a linear empirical relationship between the inverse scaling rate 1/λ1/\lambda and the instability order nn for both IPM and Boussinesq systems. This provides a predictive formula for the scaling exponents of higher-order unstable singularities, which is critical for guiding future numerical searches and for understanding the asymptotic structure of singularity hierarchies.

High-Precision PINN Framework and Solution Validation

The computational framework employs physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) with carefully designed architectures that encode mathematical symmetries, boundary conditions, and asymptotic behaviors. The optimization is performed using a full-matrix Gauss-Newton method, which, in contrast to standard first-order or approximate second-order optimizers, enables convergence to solutions with residuals at or near double-precision machine epsilon. Figure 3

Figure 1: Comparison of optimizer performance and convergence for the CCF first unstable solution, demonstrating the superiority of the Gauss-Newton method and the impact of multi-stage training.

Multi-stage training is used to further reduce high-frequency residuals by sequentially training correction networks, yielding solutions with maximum residuals as low as O(1013)O(10^{-13}) for the CCF equation and O(108)O(10^{-8}) to O(1011)O(10^{-11}) for IPM and Boussinesq. This level of accuracy is sufficient for subsequent computer-assisted proofs (CAPs) using interval arithmetic, which require rigorous control of numerical errors. Figure 4

Figure 4: Spatial distribution of equation residuals for the first unstable IPM solution after multistage training, and summary of log-10 maximum residuals for all discovered solutions.

Mathematical Structure and Inductive Bias in Neural Representations

A key methodological advance is the explicit incorporation of mathematical structure into the neural network ansatz. This includes:

  • Input coordinate transformations to handle infinite domains and enforce symmetries.
  • Output envelopes to impose decay at infinity and regularity at the origin.
  • Analytical relationships for λ\lambda derived from smoothness constraints, reducing the search space and improving convergence.
  • Iterative feedback between numerical experiments and mathematical analysis, allowing for the discovery and encoding of emergent structural properties (e.g., vanishing rates at the origin).

This approach ensures that the PINN does not merely interpolate data but is constrained to the physically and mathematically relevant solution manifold, which is essential for resolving highly unstable and non-generic singularities.

Stability Analysis and Completeness of Discovered Families

For each discovered singularity, the linearized spectrum of the PDE around the self-similar profile is computed. The number of unstable modes matches the instability order nn, confirming the expected structure of the solution hierarchy. The empirical completeness of the family is supported by the absence of additional admissible λ\lambda values within the explored range. Figure 5

Figure 3: Maximum residuals as a function of λλi\lambda - \lambda_i for the Boussinesq equation, showing sharp minima at admissible λi\lambda_i and rapid growth away from these values, indicating isolated admissible scaling exponents.

Implications and Future Directions

The discovery of unstable singularities in the IPM and Boussinesq equations, with validation at machine precision, provides a new paradigm for the paper of singularity formation in nonlinear PDEs. The empirical scaling laws for λn\lambda_n offer a roadmap for constructing singularity hierarchies in more complex systems, including the 3D Euler and Navier-Stokes equations. The demonstrated precision and validation pipeline set a new standard for the use of machine learning in mathematical physics, emphasizing the necessity of domain-specific inductive bias and rigorous error control.

The approach is not intended as a general-purpose PDE solver but as a targeted discovery tool for elusive, non-generic solutions. The integration of PINNs with high-precision optimization and mathematical structure is likely to be broadly applicable to other problems in nonlinear analysis, including the search for unstable or non-unique solutions in other classes of PDEs.

The main open challenge remains the extension of these methods to boundary-free 3D Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, where the existence and structure of unstable singularities are directly tied to the Millennium Prize Problem. Further advances will require deeper understanding of the qualitative properties of singular solutions and continued development of mathematically informed neural architectures and training protocols.

Conclusion

This work establishes a computational and mathematical framework for the systematic discovery and validation of unstable self-similar singularities in nonlinear fluid PDEs. By combining PINNs with full-matrix Gauss-Newton optimization, multi-stage training, and mathematically structured neural representations, the authors achieve unprecedented accuracy and uncover new families of unstable singularities, along with empirical scaling laws for their blow-up rates. These results have significant implications for the analysis of singularity formation, the design of computer-assisted proofs, and the future integration of machine learning with rigorous mathematical analysis in PDE theory.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Explain it Like I'm 14

Overview

This paper is about a big mystery in math and physics: can the equations that describe how fluids move suddenly “blow up,” meaning certain values (like how fast the fluid is spinning) become infinite in a finite amount of time? The authors use a mix of clever math and machine learning to discover new examples of these “blow-ups,” especially the hard-to-find kind called unstable singularities. They also reach very high accuracy, good enough to help future rigorous math proofs.

Key questions the paper asks

  • Can we find unstable singularities (the most delicate, easily disturbed blow-ups) in important fluid equations?
  • Can we do this reliably and with such high precision that mathematicians could later turn these discoveries into proofs?
  • Is there a simple pattern that connects how “unstable” a singularity is to how fast it blows up?

How they approached the problem (in everyday language)

What is a “singularity” here?

Imagine stirring a fluid. Most of the time, things stay smooth. A singularity is like a sudden, extreme event where some quantity (for example, the steepness of a wave or how quickly the fluid spins) skyrockets to infinity in a finite time. It’s like a whirlpool that gets sharper and sharper until it becomes infinitely sharp.

Stable vs. unstable singularities

  • Stable singularity: Like a ball at the bottom of a bowl. If you nudge it a bit, it rolls back and still falls into the same spot. These are easier to find with simulations.
  • Unstable singularity: Like trying to balance a pencil on its tip. The tiniest breath of air will make it fall. These are very hard to find and keep track of in computations because even tiny errors push you off course.

The paper focuses on finding the unstable kind, which many believe are the ones that matter most for the hardest open problems (like the famous Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem).

Self-similar coordinates: zooming in smartly

Near a singularity, things change very fast. To handle that, the authors use “self-similar coordinates.” Think of zooming in on a tornado so that, as time goes on, the picture keeps the same shape while you rescale space and time. In these coordinates, instead of simulating a wild movie, you “freeze” the picture and look for a smooth, steady shape (the “profile”) and a number that controls how fast it blows up (called the scaling rate, written as λ\lambda).

  • The job becomes: find the smooth profile and the right λ\lambda that make the transformed equations hold everywhere.

How they used machine learning (PINNs) plus a precise optimizer

  • PINNs (Physics-Informed Neural Networks) are neural networks that are trained to satisfy the equation itself (not just data). You feed the network the coordinates; it outputs the solution; and the training loss tells you how badly it disobeys the physics.
  • They build the network with math “hints”:
    • Impose symmetries and boundary behavior.
    • Transform infinite domains into manageable ones.
    • Use “solution envelopes” to bake in how the solution behaves near the center and far away.
    • Use math relationships to guide or even determine λ\lambda instead of guessing it.
  • High-precision training:
    • They use a Gauss–Newton optimizer (a powerful, second-order method) instead of standard optimizers like Adam or L-BFGS. This helps reach much higher accuracy.
    • They also use “multi-stage training”: train one network to get close, then train a second to fix the leftover errors (especially high-frequency wiggles).

Checking that the solutions are real and accurate

  • Residual check: Plug the network’s solution back into the equations everywhere and measure the largest error (the “maximum residual”). Smaller is better.
  • Stability check: Linearize the equations around the found profile and count how many directions are unstable. For the “nn-th unstable” solution, you should see nn unstable directions. This is exactly what they find.
  • Precision: For some solutions (in a simpler 1D model known as CCF), they get errors as small as about 101310^{-13}, which is near the limit of standard computer number precision.

Main findings and why they matter

  • They discovered several new unstable self-similar singularities in:
    • The CCF model (a simplified equation related to fluid motion),
    • The 2D incompressible porous media (IPM) equation,
    • The 2D Boussinesq equations (with a boundary), which are closely related to the 3D Euler equations with axial symmetry and a boundary.
  • They achieved very high accuracy:
    • Typical errors around 10810^{-8} to 10710^{-7} for IPM and Boussinesq,
    • Near machine precision (about 101310^{-13}) for certain CCF solutions.
    • This level of accuracy is a key requirement for rigorous computer-assisted proofs.
  • They found a simple pattern linking instability level and blow-up speed:
    • Each unstable solution has a scaling rate λ\lambda. Smaller λ\lambda means more unstable and faster blow-up.
    • For Boussinesq/Euler-with-boundary and IPM, they observed an almost linear rule for how λ\lambda changes as the number of unstable directions nn grows. In short, as nn increases, λ\lambda follows a simple trend you can predict.
  • They improved what we know about when dissipation still allows blow-up in the CCF model:
    • They found higher-order unstable solutions and refined earlier ones, pushing the boundary (a parameter often called α\alpha) up to about $0.68$ for which blow-up is expected. This sharpens our understanding of when “smoothing effects” can and cannot stop singularities.

Why this is important:

  • Unstable singularities are believed to be the kind relevant to the hardest open problems, like whether the famous Navier–Stokes equations can blow up.
  • Having a reliable way to discover and verify such solutions is a significant step forward, and their extreme accuracy opens the door to formal mathematical proofs.

What this could lead to

  • A new “playbook” for exploring very complex fluid equations:
    • Combine math insights (symmetry, scaling, boundary behavior) with specialized machine learning and high-precision optimization.
  • Better guidance for future searches:
    • The simple patterns in λ\lambda give good starting guesses for finding even higher-order unstable solutions.
  • Progress toward big open problems:
    • Although the toughest case (like the 3D Euler/Navier–Stokes without boundaries) remains unsolved, this work develops the tools and strategies likely needed to tackle it.
  • Stronger bridges between computation and proof:
    • Solutions accurate enough for computer-assisted proofs can help turn numerical discoveries into theorems, advancing both mathematics and physics.

In short, the authors show how to reliably find the most delicate kinds of fluid “blow-ups,” do it with record-setting precision, and uncover simple rules behind them—all of which could help unlock long-standing mysteries about how fluids behave at their most extreme.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a concise, actionable list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored in the paper.

  • Boundary-free Euler/Navier–Stokes singularities: No unstable self-similar solutions were discovered for boundary-free 3D Euler or Navier–Stokes; existence, structure, and admissible λ\lambda sequence in the boundary-free setting remain open.
  • Rigorous validation (CAP) beyond CCF: Computer-assisted proofs are only indicated as “in preparation” for CCF; rigorous interval-arithmetic validation, enclosure of λ\lambda, and certified residual bounds for IPM and Boussinesq profiles are not yet provided.
  • Fourth unstable Boussinesq profile unresolved: The candidate 4th unstable solution is not validated (no reliable λ\lambda or residual certification); a precise workflow to achieve CAP-level accuracy is missing.
  • Completeness and uniqueness at fixed instability order: It is not established whether the nn-th order unstable singularity is unique (up to symmetries) or whether multiple discrete solutions (or continua) exist for the same instability order.
  • Symmetry restrictions in discovery and stability: All solutions and linear stability analyses are performed under specific symmetry/parity and boundary conditions; symmetry-breaking modes, non-axisymmetric perturbations, and alternative boundary geometries are not analyzed.
  • Linear vs nonlinear stability: Only linear spectra are computed; nonlinear (in)stability, mode coupling, and behavior along center/unstable manifolds are unquantified.
  • Dynamical realization and manifolds: There is no time-dependent verification that trajectories in rescaled variables approach/repel the computed profiles; the dimension/codimension and structure of stable/unstable manifolds, and explicit construction of initial data that land on these trajectories, are not characterized.
  • Empirical λ\lambda–instability law lacks theory: The observed linear law of inverse scaling rate vs instability order for IPM and Boussinesq is empirical; its theoretical derivation, range of validity, asymptotics as nn\to\infty, and error quantification are open.
  • No asymptotic law for CCF: Higher-order unstable CCF profiles are not available at sufficient accuracy to infer an asymptotic λn\lambda_n relationship; it remains unclear whether a similar linear trend holds.
  • Fractional dissipation thresholds in CCF: Only up to the second unstable profile is used to update the critical α\alpha threshold (to α0.68\alpha\lesssim 0.68); whether higher-order profiles further raise this threshold or yield the optimal bound is unknown.
  • Viscous persistence: The conjecture that higher-instability Euler/Boussinesq/IPM profiles persist under viscosity (Navier–Stokes or fractional dissipation) is untested; quantitative regimes, scaling laws, and perturbative matching are not established.
  • Effects of exponentially small boundary terms: For the Boussinesq/Euler analogy “up to exponentially small terms,” the impact of these corrections on high-order unstable solutions, their spectra, and λ\lambda is not quantified.
  • Residual metric adequacy: Accuracy is reported via maximum PDE residual on a dense grid; rigorous a posteriori error estimators in continuous norms, aliasing analysis, and guarantees against grid-induced bias are missing.
  • λ\lambda identification and uncertainty: The λ\lambda selection via smoothness constraints and perturbation tests lacks rigorous uniqueness and error bars; sensitivity to the choice of solution envelope and coordinate transforms is not quantified.
  • Sensitivity to architecture and training choices: The dependence of discovered solutions on PINN architecture, activation functions, solution envelopes, compactification maps, sampling strategy, and multistage training is not systematically studied.
  • Scalability of optimization: The full-matrix Gauss–Newton approach depends on small networks; how to scale to higher-dimensional, less symmetric problems (e.g., full 3D Euler without boundaries) while maintaining precision remains open.
  • Precision and reproducibility: Results rely on GPU double precision and report being round-off limited; reproducibility across hardware, potential benefits of arbitrary-precision arithmetic, and formal uncertainty quantification for eigenvalues/λ\lambda/residuals are not addressed.
  • Infinite-domain modeling choices: The compactification and envelope factors may bias the solution space; comparisons with alternative bases (e.g., rational spectral, conformal maps) and their effect on accuracy and discoverability are not explored.
  • Time-integration verification: Stabilized time-stepping or shadowing methods to confirm self-similar attractor/repellor behavior in full PDE dynamics near the candidate profiles are not presented.
  • Higher-order solutions beyond those reported: Systematic procedures and initializations to robustly discover higher-order unstable Boussinesq/IPM/CCF solutions (beyond those obtained here) are not established.
  • Physical interpretability and detection: How instability order and λ\lambda map to observable signatures in direct numerical simulations or experiments, and how to target or detect specific unstable profiles in practice, are not specified.
  • Extension to other PDEs: The approach is not tested on related equations with known or suspected unstable blow-up (e.g., SQG, vortex sheets, water waves, non-axisymmetric 3D Euler); transferability and required adaptations are unknown.
  • Data/code availability for community CAP: Public release of profiles, λ\lambda values, training configurations, and validation grids to facilitate independent CAPs and benchmarking is not specified.
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 17 posts and received 4824 likes.

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

HackerNews

  1. Discovery of Unstable Singularities (4 points, 0 comments)
Reddit Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Reddit

alphaXiv

  1. Discovery of Unstable Singularities (55 likes, 0 questions)