SyMetric | Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2024)

Supplemental Material

1. J. L. F. Abascal and C. Vega. A general purpose model for the condensed phases of water: Tip4p/2005. J. Chem. Phys., 123:234505, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
2. R. Abraham and J.E. Marsden. Foundations of Mechanics. AMS Chelsea publishing. AMS Chelsea Pub./American Mathematical Society, 2008.Google Scholar
3. Christine Allen-Blanchette, Sushant Veer, Anirudha Majumdar, and Naomi Ehrich Leonard. LagNetViP: A Lagrangian neural network for video prediction. In Proceedings of AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020.Google Scholar
4. Omri Azencot, N Benjamin Erichson, Vanessa Lin, and Michael W Mahoney. Forecasting sequential data using consistent Koopman autoencoders. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2020.Google Scholar
5. James P Bailey and Georgios Piliouras. Multi-agent learning in network zero-sum games is a Hamiltonian system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2019.Google Scholar
6. David Balduzzi, Sebastien Racaniere, James Martens, Jakob Foerster, Karl Tuyls, and Thore Graepel. The mechanics of n-player differentiable games. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 354–363, 2018.Google Scholar
7. Alexandar Botev, Andrew Jaegle, Peter Wirnsberger, Daniel Hennes, and Irina Higgins. Which priors matter? Benchmarking models for learning latent dynamics. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021.Google Scholar
8. Zhengdao Chen, Jianyu Zhang, Martin Arjovsky, and Léon Bottou. Symplectic recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020.Google Scholar
9. Anshul Choudhary, John F Lindner, Elliott G Holliday, Scott T Miller, Sudeshna Sinha, and William L Ditto. Forecasting Hamiltonian dynamics without canonical coordinates. Nonlinear Dynamics, pages 1–10, 2020.Google Scholar
10. Wendy D. Cornell, Piotr Cieplak, Christopher I. Bayly, Ian R. Gould, Kenneth M. Merz, David M. Ferguson, David C. Spellmeyer, Thomas Fox, James W. Caldwell, and Peter A. Kollman. A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 117(19):5179–5197, 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
11. Miles Cranmer, Sam Greydanus, Stephan Hoyer, Peter Battaglia, David Spergel, and Shirley Ho. Lagrangian neural networks. In ICLR Deep Differential Equations Workshop, 2020.Google Scholar
12. Shaan A. Desai, Marios Mattheakis, and StephenJ. Roberts. Variational integrator graph networks for learning energy-conserving dynamical systems. Physical Review E., 104(3), 2020.Google ScholarCross Ref
13. Jay L. Devore. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Spinger, 2008.Google Scholar
14. Daniel M. DiPietro, Shiying Xiong, and BoZhu. Sparse symplectically integrated neural networks. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.Google Scholar
15. Alexey Dosovitskiy and Thomas Brox. Generating images with perceptual similarity metrics based on deep networks. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2016.Google Scholar
16. Sunny Duan, Loic Matthey, Andre Saraiva, Nicholas Watters, Christopher P Burgess, Alexander Lerchner, and Irina Higgins. Unsupervised model selection for variational disentangled representation learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020.Google Scholar
17. Marc Finzi, Ke Alexander Wang, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. Simplifying Hamiltonian and Lagrangian neural networks via explicit constraints. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.Google Scholar
18. Jason Frank. Symplectic flows and maps and volume preservation. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/ frank011/Classes/numwisk/ch16.pdf, 2008.Google Scholar
19. Daan Frenkel and Berend Smit. Understanding Molecular Simulation. Academic Press, San Diego, second edition, 2002.Google Scholar
20. Samuel Greydanus, Misko Dzamba, and Jason Yosinski. Hamiltonian neural networks. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2019.Google Scholar
21. Niklas Heim, Václav Šmídl, and Tomáš Pevnỳ. Rodent: Relevance determination in differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00656, 2019.Google Scholar
22. Irina Higgins, Loic Matthey, Arka Pal, Christopher Burgess, Xavier Glorot, Matthew Botvinick, Shakir Mohamed, and Alexander Lerchner. β-VAE: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017.Google Scholar
23. William G. Hoover. Canonical dynamics: Equilibrium phase-space distributions. Physical Review A, 31:1695–1697, 1985.Google ScholarCross Ref
24. In Huh, Eunho Yang, Sung Ju Hwang, and Jinwoo Shin. Time-reversal symmetric ODE network. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.Google Scholar
25. Maxim Jeffs. Harvard, Lecture Notes: Classical mechanics and symplectic geometry, 2020. URL: http://people.math.harvard.edu/~jeffs/SymplecticNotes.pdf.Google Scholar
26. Pengzhan Jin, Zhen Zhang, Aiqing Zhu, Yifa Tang, and George Em Karniadakis. SympNets: Intrinsic structure-preserving symplectic networks for identifying Hamiltonian systems. Neural Networks, 132:166–179, 2020.Google ScholarCross Ref
27. J. E. Jones and Sydney Chapman. On the determination of molecularfields. –II. From the equation of state of a gas. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 106(738):463–477, 1924.Google ScholarCross Ref
28. Rishabh Kabra, Chris Burgess, Loic Matthey, Raphael Lopez Kaufman, Klaus Greff, Malcolm Reynolds, and Alexander Lerchner. Multi-object datasets. https://github.com/deepmind/multi-object-datasets/, 2019.Google Scholar
29. Lev Davidovich Landau and Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifsh*tz. Course of theoretical physics. Elsevier, 2013.Google Scholar
30. Anders Boesen Lindbo Larsen, Søren Kaae Sønderby, Hugo Larochelle, and Ole Winther. Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2016.Google Scholar
31. Yunzhu Li, Toru Lin, Kexin Yi, Daniel Bear, Daniel LK Yamins, Jiajun Wu, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Antonio Torralba. Visual grounding of learned physical models. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2020.Google Scholar
32. Michael Lutter, Christian Ritter, and Jan Peters. Deep Lagrangian networks: Using physics as model prior for deep learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019.Google Scholar
33. Andrew L Maas, Awni Y Hannun, and Andrew Y Ng. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2013.Google Scholar
34. Lars Mescheder, Andreas Geiger, and Sebastian Nowozin. Which training methods for GANs do actually converge? In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018.Google Scholar
35. Lars Mescheder, Sebastian Nowozin, and Andreas Geiger. The numericsofGANs. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017.Google Scholar
36. Luke Metz, Ben Poole, David Pfau, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. Unrolled generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017.Google Scholar
37. Shuichi Nosé. A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods. J. Chem. Phys., 81(1):511–519, 1984.Google ScholarCross Ref
38. Chongli Qin, Yan Wu, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, Timothy P Lillicrap, and Pushmeet Kohli. Training generative adversarial networks by solving ordinary differential equations. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.Google Scholar
39. Prajit Ramachandran, Barret Zoph, and Quoc V Le. Swish: a self-gated activation function. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05941.Google Scholar
40. Katharina Rath, Christopher G. Albert, Bernd Bischl, and Udo von Toussaint. Symplectic Gaussian process regression of maps in Hamiltonian systems. Chaos, 31, 2021.Google Scholar
41. Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Sébastien Racanière, Irina Higgins, and Peter Toth. Equivariant Hamiltonian flows. In NeurIPS workshop: Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences, 2019.Google Scholar
42. Danilo Jimenez Rezende and Fabio Viola. Taming VAEs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00597, 2018.Google Scholar
43. Manuel A Roehrl, Thomas A Runkler, Veronika Brandtstetter, Michel Tokic, and Stefan Ober-mayer. Modeling system dynamics with physics-informed neural networks based on Lagrangian mechanics. In International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC) World Congress, 2020.Google ScholarCross Ref
44. Oleh Rybkin. The reasonable ineffectiveness of pixel metrics for future prediction (and what to do about it), 2018. URL: https://bit.ly/2YHPRg2.Google Scholar
45. Steindor Saemundsson, Alexander Terenin, Katja Hofmann, and Marc Deisenroth. Variational integrator networks for physically structured embeddings. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2020.Google Scholar
46. Iain W. Stewart. MIT, Lecture Notes: Advanced Classical Mechanics, 2016. URL: https://bit.ly/3oP7fuc.Google Scholar
47. Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
48. Yunjin Tong, Shiying Xiong, Xingzhe He, Guanghan Pan, and Bo Zhu. Symplectic neural networks in Taylor series form for Hamiltonian systems. Journal of Computational Physics, 437, 2020.Google Scholar
49. Peter Toth, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Andrew Jaegle, Sébastien Racanière, Aleksandar Botev, and Irina Higgins. Hamiltonian generative networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020.Google Scholar
50. Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark. Symbolic pregression: Discovering physical laws from raw distorted video. Physical Review E, 103, 2021.Google Scholar
51. David Warde-Farley and Yoshua Bengio. Improving generative adversarial networks with denoising feature matching. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017.Google Scholar
52. Nicholas Watters, Loic Matthey, Christopher P Burgess, and Alexander Lerchner. Spatial broadcast decoder: A simple architecture for learning disentangled representations in VAEs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07017, 2019.Google Scholar
53. Jinshan Wu. Hamiltonian formalism of game theory. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0501088, 2005.Google Scholar
54. Shiying Xiong, Yunjin Tong, Xingzhe He, Cheng Yang, Shuqi Yang, and Bo Zhu. Nonseparable symplectic neural networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021.Google Scholar
55. Yaofeng Desmond Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty. Dissipative SymODENet: Encoding Hamiltonian dynamics with dissipation and control into deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08860, 2020.Google Scholar
56. Yaofeng Desmond Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty. Symplectic ODE-net: Learning Hamiltonian dynamics with control. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020.Google Scholar
57. Yaofeng Desmond Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty. Benchmarking energy-conserving neural networks for learning dynamics from data. In Conference on Learning for Dynamics and Control (L4DC), 2021.Google Scholar
58. Yaofeng Desmond Zhong and Naomi Leonard. Unsupervised learning of Lagrangian dynamics from images for prediction and control. Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.Google Scholar

• Stability and Hopf bifurcation of a Lorenz-like system

  Hopf bifurcation is one of the important dynamical behaviors. It could often cause some phenomena, such as quasiperiodicity and intermittency. Consequently, chaos will happen due to such dynamical behaviors. Since chaos appears in the Lorenz-like system,...

  Read More

• Bifurcation and control for a discrete-time prey-predator model with Holling-IV functional response

  The dynamics of a discrete-time predator-prey model with Holling-IV functional response are investigated. It is shown that the model undergoes a flip bifurcation, a Hopf bifurcation and a saddle-node bifurcation by using the center manifold theorem and ...

  Read More

• Quantum correlation swapping

  Quantum correlations (QCs), including quantum entanglement and those different, are important quantum resources and have attracted much attention recently. Quantum entanglement swapping as a kernel technique has already been applied to quantum repeaters ...

  Read More