Feedback Favors the Generalization of Neural ODEs
Jindou Jia, Zihan Yang, Meng Wang, Kexin Guo, Jianfei Yang, and Xiang Yu, Lei Guo

TL;DR
This paper introduces feedback neural networks that incorporate real-time feedback loops to improve the generalization of neural ODEs in continuous-time prediction tasks, inspired by biological systems.
Contribution
It proposes a novel feedback mechanism for neural ODEs, including linear and nonlinear forms, with convergence guarantees and extensive real-world testing demonstrating superior generalization.
Findings
Feedback neural networks improve generalization in unseen scenarios.
Linear feedback form guarantees convergence.
Significant performance gains in real-world trajectory prediction and control tasks.
Abstract
The well-known generalization problem hinders the application of artificial neural networks in continuous-time prediction tasks with varying latent dynamics. In sharp contrast, biological systems can neatly adapt to evolving environments benefiting from real-time feedback mechanisms. Inspired by the feedback philosophy, we present feedback neural networks, showing that a feedback loop can flexibly correct the learned latent dynamics of neural ordinary differential equations (neural ODEs), leading to a prominent generalization improvement. The feedback neural network is a novel two-DOF neural network, which possesses robust performance in unseen scenarios with no loss of accuracy performance on previous tasks.} A linear feedback form is presented to correct the learned latent dynamics firstly, with a convergence guarantee. Then, domain randomization is utilized to learn a nonlinear…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Oral
1) The paper studies the critical issue of adaptability and generalizability in continuous-time prediction tasks using Neural ODEs, which is essential for real-world applications. 2) By incorporating feedback mechanisms, the approach potentially enhances the adaptability and generalizability of Neural ODEs, making it a contribution to the field. 3) By conducting several experiments, the proposed method demonstrates superior performance across various trajectory and dynamics prediction tasks.
1) **Comparison with Existing Feedback Mechanisms**: While feedback mechanisms are commonly employed in other neural network-based time-series prediction tasks, this paper does not compare its approach to these established methods. For example, studies such as [1,2] use feedback mechanisms inspired by the Kalman filter and Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) to adapt neural networks for online time-series prediction. Including a comparison with these relevant works would be. 2) **Connection to Continu
1. Clear and promising motivation and concise writing that trace the development of integrating Neural ODEs with feedback structures, progressing from linear to nonlinear feedback. 2. Theoretical analysis is presented for the linear feedback case, demonstrating that prediction error converges to a bounded set with an appropriately chosen feedback gain. 3. Extensive illustrations on simple cases effectively demonstrate their method’s performance compared to standard Neural ODEs. 4. In addition to
I have limited experience with Neural ODEs, so I’m not fully confident in assessing the contribution to this area. My main concerns, however, relate to the experimental section. While the current experiments effectively showcase the improvements of FNN, the experimental setup is relatively simple and lacks key baselines in learning dynamics models beyond Neural ODEs, such as [1-3]. Furthermore, it is unclear how flight trajectories were collected and how tracking performance was evaluated. Given
I believe this paper makes a strong contribution. The paper is well-written and easy to follow. The technical development with the use of closed-loop state error feedback term is well-motivated. I found the paper an interesting read.
Despite the significant contributions, there are quite a few mathematical errors and a general lack of mathematical rigor in the paper. These errors might be minor and easy to resolve, I suggest the authors address the following issues. 1. Equation (7) appears erroneous. Combining (4) and (6) should actually give the term $L(\bar{x}(t)-\hat{x}(t))$, not $L(x(t)-\hat{x}(t))$. This error gets carried forward to Eq. (9) of the convergence analysis, thus potentially invalidating Theorem 1. As far a
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
