Physical learning rules such as equilibrium propagation (EP), coupled learning (CL), and adjoint coupled learning (AL) train resistive networks through local measurements. The learned function is decided by where on the solution manifold training lands. Two properties could decide it, and they have not been separated: the circuit's invariance under rescaling every conductance, and the rule's conservation of the mass K = (1/2) sum_e kappa_e^2. We separate them. When every element is trainable, all three vector fields are homogeneous in the conductances, so the initialization scale is provably inert. An element the rule does not adjust breaks that homogeneity whatever its constitutive law. Across twenty topologies the learned function moves with the initialization scale by a median of twelve percent with fixed rectifiers and eight with fixed linear resistors, against 3e-8 when every element is trainable; a single fixed rectifier produces the whole effect. The conservation law is not what protects the function: AL, which we prove dissipates the mass at exactly twice its own loss, remembers its initialization as strongly as the rules that conserve it, and the memory survives in runs where K is conserved to 1e-4. Raising the fixed-element count from one to eight multiplies the conservation drift by five thousand and leaves the memory unchanged, while the all-trainable circuit under AL drifts comparably and remembers nothing. What the rule's conservation structure does control is solution quality: at matched training loss AL is worse than EP and CL in four of six small circuits, by a median of three to seven percent, though the ordering is not stable across checkpoints and does not reproduce at fifty nodes. Physical learning therefore carries two independent inductive biases, one belonging to the circuit and one to the rule, and only the first is a memory of how the device was built.
How many memories can a local learning rule protect, and what fixes the number? Physical learning rules train resistive networks through local measurements, and the standard rules conserve a mass-like function of the conductances, a law whose general form was posed as an open problem with the expectation that no useful...
Physical learning lets a trainable material or network use its own physical response to carry error signals, reducing the need for a separately programmed backward computation. We ask what determines whether such a system follows conventional gradient descent or evolves along a genuinely different learning trajectory....
Rui-Wu Niu, Xiao-Wen Bi, M. V. van Wyk· 1 citation
It is argued that functional parameter identifiability may provide an organizing principle for models that systematically reuse and recombine learned functions while adapting only the components that need to change.
A discrete Schur-Cohn criterion for Verlet with velocity coupling, necessary and sufficient per latent root, with no commutation hypothesis is proved here: a discrete Schur-Cohn criterion for Verlet with velocity coupling.
F. Arrabal-Campos, Ignacio Fernández, Francisco G. Montoya et al.· 1 citation
Physical neural networks and analog in-memory computing could reduce the energy cost of neural network training. Realizing this potential, however, requires optimizers that combine effective learning with physical implementability. SGD fits local analog updates but struggles on transformers, while Adam family is unstab...
A physical learning network is read at a few accessible nodes. Every task and learning rule that uses only the steady voltages and currents there, at a fixed operating point, acts through the boundary response map. Changes in the kernel of its Jacobian are blind to first order. A walk along one fiber ran to a 600-step...
Q. Nguyen, T. Vu· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 13, 2026
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 29, 2026
Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.