arxiv: 2508.20440 · v4 · submitted 2025-08-28 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

DDC-PINNs: A Predictor-Corrector Approach Based on Neural Network-Driven Domain Decomposition and Classical ODE Solvers for Time-Dependent PDEs

Xun Yang , Guanqiu Ma , Maohua Ran This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA

keywords physics-informed neural networksdomain decompositiontime-dependent PDEscausalityODE solverspredictor-correctornumerical PDE methods

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

DDC-PINNs obtain a domain-decomposed neural approximation to turn time-dependent PDEs into ODEs solved by classical integrators.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper addresses the absence of temporal causality in standard PINNs for time-dependent PDEs, where errors accumulate because the network must learn future states while enforcing initial conditions. It introduces domain decomposition to improve spatial expressivity across subdomains and uses a causal training sequence. An initial approximate solution is computed with these decomposed PINNs. This approximation replaces all solution-dependent terms except the time derivative, converting the PDE into a system of ODEs. Classical ODE solvers then integrate the system forward in time to produce the final solution.

Core claim

The DDC-PINNs framework first computes an approximate solution via PINNs equipped with domain decomposition, then retains only the time-derivative term in the original PDE while substituting the remaining solution-dependent terms with this approximation, thereby reducing the PDE to a set of ODEs that are integrated using standard numerical ODE methods.

What carries the argument

Domain-decomposed PINN approximation that replaces solution-dependent PDE terms to produce solvable ODEs.

If this is right

The method enforces temporal causality by solving the reduced ODE system sequentially in time.
Domain decomposition improves the network's ability to represent differing physical behaviors in separate spatial regions.
The overall approach keeps the training flexibility and mesh-free nature of PINNs while adding classical integration accuracy.
Numerical tests on standard time-dependent problems confirm reduced error accumulation compared with plain PINNs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same substitution step could be applied after training on coarse grids to initialize finer classical solvers.
Extending the domain decomposition to time as well might further stabilize long-time integrations.
The predictor-corrector structure suggests direct compatibility with adaptive step-size ODE integrators for variable time scales.

Load-bearing premise

The approximate solution from the domain-decomposed PINNs is accurate enough that the ODEs obtained by substitution yield solutions that stay close to the true PDE solution across the full time interval.

What would settle it

A time-dependent PDE with a known exact solution for which the DDC-PINNs output at final time differs from the exact value by more than a few percent while a standard causal PINN baseline does not.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20440 by Guanqiu Ma, Maohua Ran, Xun Yang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Exact solution, D3PINNs solution and point-wise errors for Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of the exact solutions and D3PINNs solutions for Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Reference solution, D3PINNs solution and point-wise errors for Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparing the reference solutions and D3PINNs solutions for Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

When solving time-dependent partial differential equations(PDEs), traditional physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have inherent limitations: due to the lack of temporal causality, the network is forced to learn the later-time control equations while fully capturing the initial conditions, resulting in the continuous accumulation of errors during the integration process. Meanwhile, the limited expressivity of a single network hinders its ability to capture diverse physical behaviors across multiple subdomains. To address these issues, we propose a domain-decomposition-based causal PINNs (DDC-PINNs) framework. This framework enhances spatial representation through domain decomposition and employs a causal strategy to constrain the temporal learning sequence, thereby improving the accuracy and generalization ability of solutions to time-varying problems. Within this framework, an approximate solution is first obtained through PINNs with domain decomposition. Subsequently, the time derivative term in the PDE is retained, while other solution-dependent terms are replaced with this approximate solution, thereby simplifying the original PDEs into ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Finally, classical numerical methods for solving ODEs are employed to obtain the time-dependent solution. DDC-PINNs not only preserve the inherent computational efficiency and flexibility of PINNs but also effectively incorporate causality when solving time-dependent PDEs. Numerical experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

DDC-PINNs combines domain-decomposed causal PINNs with a classical ODE corrector step, but the method's reliability hinges on an unanalyzed assumption that the predictor stays accurate enough for the ODE to track the true solution.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is a practical pipeline: first train a domain-decomposed PINN with a causal loss that respects time order, then freeze that network, replace the non-derivative terms in the PDE with its output, and integrate the resulting ODE with a standard solver like Runge-Kutta. This keeps the mesh-free appeal of PINNs while adding a reliable time-marching piece that should reduce error accumulation on long intervals. The authors show the approach on a few time-dependent test problems and report that it improves over plain PINNs. That is a reasonable engineering move for people already using PINNs on evolution equations. The experiments appear to support the claim for the chosen cases, and the implementation stays close to existing PINN code, which lowers the barrier for adoption. The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points: there is no a-priori bound on how far the domain-decomposed predictor can be from the true field, nor any Lipschitz or stability estimate for the non-autonomous ODE that results. If the predictor error grows or hits a sensitive region, the classical integrator can still drift. The paper treats success on the numerical examples as sufficient evidence, which is common but leaves the method's robustness for unseen problems unaddressed. Readers working on scientific machine learning for fluids, waves, or reaction-diffusion systems could get value from trying the code on their own problems. The work is coherent on its own terms and engages the relevant literature on causal PINNs and domain decomposition. It deserves a serious referee who can check the experiments in detail and press for at least a simple error-propagation argument or more challenging test cases. I would send it to review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes DDC-PINNs, a hybrid predictor-corrector framework for time-dependent PDEs. Domain-decomposed causal PINNs first produce an approximate solution u_NN; the PDE is then reduced to an ODE by retaining only the time-derivative term and substituting all other solution-dependent terms with u_NN; the resulting ODE is integrated with a classical solver. The authors claim that the approach preserves PINN efficiency and flexibility while enforcing causality, with numerical experiments confirming effectiveness.

Significance. If the empirical results are reproducible and the method generalizes, the hybrid construction could provide a practical route to improved temporal accuracy in PINN-based solvers by leveraging classical ODE integrators after a neural-network predictor step. Domain decomposition for spatial expressivity is a reasonable design choice, but the overall contribution hinges on whether the predictor-corrector step demonstrably outperforms existing causal or time-marching PINN variants.

major comments (2)

[Method section (predictor-corrector construction)] The reduction of the PDE to an ODE (described after the domain-decomposed PINN step) rests on the unproven assumption that the perturbation induced by replacing solution-dependent terms with u_NN does not cause the integrated trajectory to diverge from the true PDE solution. No a-priori bounds on ||u - u_NN||, no Lipschitz or stability estimates for the resulting non-autonomous ODE, and no propagation-of-error analysis are supplied; this assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of effectiveness over the full time horizon.
[Numerical experiments section] The abstract asserts that 'numerical experiments verify the effectiveness,' yet the provided text contains no quantitative error metrics, convergence rates, baseline comparisons against standard PINNs or other causal methods, or stability indicators. Without these, the empirical support for the superiority claim cannot be assessed.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Missing space in 'equations(PDEs)' in the abstract.
[Abstract and conclusions] The statement that the method 'preserve[s] the inherent computational efficiency' should be accompanied by wall-clock timings or flop counts relative to a monolithic PINN if efficiency is presented as a retained advantage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment in turn and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation and empirical support.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Method section (predictor-corrector construction)] The reduction of the PDE to an ODE (described after the domain-decomposed PINN step) rests on the unproven assumption that the perturbation induced by replacing solution-dependent terms with u_NN does not cause the integrated trajectory to diverge from the true PDE solution. No a-priori bounds on ||u - u_NN||, no Lipschitz or stability estimates for the resulting non-autonomous ODE, and no propagation-of-error analysis are supplied; this assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of effectiveness over the full time horizon.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply a rigorous a priori error analysis or stability estimates for the ODE correction step. The DDC-PINNs framework is presented as a practical hybrid method in which the domain-decomposed causal PINN supplies a spatially resolved predictor that already incorporates a causal training strategy; the classical ODE integrator then enforces strict temporal evolution. We will revise the Method section to add an explicit discussion of the modeling assumptions, including a heuristic argument based on the local Lipschitz continuity of the PDE right-hand side and numerical sensitivity tests that quantify how small perturbations in u_NN affect the integrated trajectory. A complete theoretical propagation-of-error bound for arbitrary time-dependent PDEs lies beyond the scope of the present work and will be noted as an important topic for future research. revision: partial
Referee: [Numerical experiments section] The abstract asserts that 'numerical experiments verify the effectiveness,' yet the provided text contains no quantitative error metrics, convergence rates, baseline comparisons against standard PINNs or other causal methods, or stability indicators. Without these, the empirical support for the superiority claim cannot be assessed.

Authors: We accept the referee's observation that the quantitative support could be presented more clearly. We will revise the Numerical Experiments section to include a consolidated table reporting relative L2 and maximum errors at selected time instants, convergence rates with respect to the number of subdomains and collocation points, and direct side-by-side comparisons against vanilla PINNs as well as existing causal and time-marching PINN variants. We will also add plots and tabulated indicators of solution stability (e.g., maximum deviation from a reference solution over the full time horizon). These additions will make the empirical validation explicit and directly address the claims made in the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses independent classical ODE solver after PINN predictor

full rationale

The paper presents a sequential procedure: domain-decomposed causal PINNs generate an approximate solution u_NN, which is then substituted into the PDE to form an ODE (retaining only the time-derivative term), solved via classical numerical integrators. No quoted step reduces the final output to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, a self-definitional loop, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The classical solver step is external and independent of the neural-network training, so the overall chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks with no exhibited reduction by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is limited to the abstract; therefore the ledger records only the assumptions that are explicitly invoked or strongly implied by the described procedure.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Neural networks with domain decomposition can produce an approximation accurate enough to substitute for solution-dependent terms in the PDE.
This premise is required for the step that converts the PDE into ODEs.
domain assumption Classical ODE solvers applied to the resulting system will not introduce errors that invalidate the overall solution.
Implicit in the claim that the hybrid method improves accuracy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5777 in / 1395 out tokens · 60555 ms · 2026-05-18T21:25:35.000241+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Domain decomposition is based on the principle of dividing a large domain into smaller domains, with each subdomain trained by a separate neural network.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

Pattern Recognit 2018;77:354-377

Gu JX, Wang ZH, Kuen J, Ma LY, et al, Recent advances in convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recognit 2018;77:354-377

work page 2018
[2]

Nature 2015;521:436-444

LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G, Deep learning. Nature 2015;521:436-444

work page 2015
[3]

Commun ACM

Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE, Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Commun ACM. 2017;60:84-90

work page 2017
[4]

IEEE Signal Process Mag 2012;29:82-97

Hinton G, Deng L, Yu D, Dahl GE, et al, Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2012;29:82-97

work page 2012
[5]

J Comput Phys 2019;378:686-707

Raissi M, Perdikaris P, Karniadakis GE, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equa- tions. J Comput Phys 2019;378:686-707

work page 2019
[6]

SIAM J Sci Comput 2019;41:2603-2626

Pang G, Lu L, Karniadakis GE, fPINNs: Fractional physics-informed neural networks. SIAM J Sci Comput 2019;41:2603-2626

work page 2019
[7]

Comput Meth- ods Appl Mech Eng 2022;400:115523

Guo L, Wu H, Yu XC, Zhou T, Monte Carlo fPINNs:Deep learning method for forward and in- verse problems involving high dimensional fractional partial differential equations. Comput Meth- ods Appl Mech Eng 2022;400:115523

work page 2022
[8]

SIAM Rev 2021;63:208-228

Lu L, Meng X, Mao Z, Karniadakis GE, DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equations. SIAM Rev 2021;63:208-228

work page 2021
[9]

J Comput Phys 2022;462:111260

Yuan L, Ni YQ, Deng XY, Hao S, A-PINN: Auxiliary physics informed neural networks for forward and inverse problems of nonlinear integro-differential equations. J Comput Phys 2022;462:111260

work page 2022
[10]

J Comput Phys 2019;397:108850

Zhang D, Lu L, Guo L, Karniadakis GE, Quantifying total uncertainty in physics-informed neu- ral networks for solving forward and inverse stochastic problems. J Comput Phys 2019;397:108850

work page 2019
[11]

SIAM J Sci Comput 2020;42:639-665

Zhang D, Guo L, Karniadakis GE, Learning in modal space: Solving time-dependent stochastic PDEs using physics-informed neural networks. SIAM J Sci Comput 2020;42:639-665

work page 2020
[12]

Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2022;393:114823

Yu J, Lu L, Meng XH, Karniadakis GE, Gradient-enhanced physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2022;393:114823. 14

work page 2022
[13]

SIAM J Sci Comput 2021;43:3055-3081

Wang S, Teng Y, Perdikaris P, Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks. SIAM J Sci Comput 2021;43:3055-3081

work page 2021
[14]

Neurocomputing 2022;496:11-34

XiangZX,PengW,LiuX,YaoW,Self-adaptivelossbalancedphysics-informedneuralnetworks. Neurocomputing 2022;496:11-34

work page 2022
[15]

Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2024;421:116805

Anagnostopoulos SJ, Toscano JD, Stergiopulos N, Karniadakis GE, Residual-based attention in physics-informed neural networks. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2024;421:116805

work page 2024
[16]

J Comput Phys 2022;449:110768

Wang S, Yu X, Perdikaris P, When and why PINNs fail to train: a neural tangent kernel perspective. J Comput Phys 2022;449:110768

work page 2022
[17]

J Comput Phys 2023;474:111722

McClenny LD, Braga-Neto UM, Self-adaptive physics-informed neural networks. J Comput Phys 2023;474:111722

work page 2023
[18]

J Comput Phys 2024;501:112781

Song YJ, Wang H, Yang H, Taccari ML, et al, Loss-attentional physics-informed neural net- works. J Comput Phys 2024;501:112781

work page 2024
[19]

J Comput Phys 2021;441:110444

Gu YQ, Yang HZ, Zhou C, SelectNet: Self-paced learning for high-dimensional partial differ- ential equations. J Comput Phys 2021;441:110444

work page 2021
[20]

Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2023;403:115671

Wu CX, Zhu M, Tan QY, Kartha Y, Lu L, A comprehensive study of non-adaptive and residual- based adaptive sampling for physics-informed neural networks. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2023;403:115671

work page 2023
[21]

Acta Mech Sin 2021;37:1727-1738

Cai SZ, Mao ZP, Wang ZC, Yin Ml, et al, Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: a review. Acta Mech Sin 2021;37:1727-1738

work page 2021
[22]

J Comput Phys 2020;401:109020

Meng XH, Karniadakis GE, A composite neural network that learns from multifidelity data: ap- plication to function approximation and inverse PDE problems. J Comput Phys 2020;401:109020

work page 2020
[23]

SIAM J Sci Comput 2019;41:2603-2626

Pang GF, Lu L, Karniadakis GE, FPINNs: fractional physics-informed neural networks. SIAM J Sci Comput 2019;41:2603-2626

work page 2019
[24]

Opt Express 2020;28:11618-11633

Chen Y, Lu L, Karniadakis GE, Dal Negro L, Physics-informed neural networks for inverse problems in nano-optics and metamaterials. Opt Express 2020;28:11618-11633

work page 2020
[25]

Phys Revn E 2021;104:045303

Du YF, Zaki TA, Evolutional deep neural network. Phys Revn E 2021;104:045303

work page 2021
[26]

J Comput Phys 2024;496:112588

Bruna J, Peherstorfer B, Vanden-Eijnden E, Neural Galerkin Scheme with Active Learning for High-dimensional Evolution Equations. J Comput Phys 2024;496:112588

work page 2024
[27]

Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2023;36:4097-4114

Berman J, Peherstorfer B, Randomized sparse Neural Galerkin schemes for solving evolution equations with deep networks. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2023;36:4097-4114. 15

work page 2023
[28]

Physica D

Wen YX, Vanden-Eijnden E, Peherstorfer B, Coupling parameter and particle dynamics for adaptive sampling in Neural Galerkin schemes. Physica D. 2024;462:134129

work page 2024
[29]

J Comput Phys 2023;498:112638

Zhang JH, Zhang SH, Shen J, Lin G, Energy-Dissipative Evolutionary Deep Operator Neural Networks. J Comput Phys 2023;498:112638

work page 2023
[30]

SIAM J Sci Comput 2024;46:2528-2556

Hu ZQ, Liu C, Wang YW, Xu ZL, Energetic Variational Neural Network Discretizations of Gradient Flows. SIAM J Sci Comput 2024;46:2528-2556

work page 2024
[31]

SIAM J Sci Comput 2024;46:583-607

Schwerdtner P, Schulze P, Berman J, Peherstorfer B, Nonlinear embeddings for conserv- ing Hamiltonians and other quantities with Neural Galerkin schemes. SIAM J Sci Comput 2024;46:583-607

work page 2024
[32]

Yang X, Ran MH, Pu HD, Weak neural Galerkin method for nonlinear time-dependent partial differential equations. Phys. Lett. A 2025;554:130757

work page 2025
[33]

Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2024;427:117036

Jung J, Kim H, Shin H, Choi M, CEENs: Causality-enforced evolutional networks for solving time-dependent partial differential equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2024;427:117036

work page 2024
[34]

Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2020;365:113028

Jagtap AD, Kharazmi E, Karniadakis GE, Conservative physics-informed neural networks on discrete domains for conservation laws: applications to forward and inverse problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2020;365:113028

work page 2020
[35]

Commun Comput Phys 2020;28:2002-2041

Jagtap AD, Karniadakis GE, Extended physics-informed neural networks (XPINNs): A gen- eralized space-time domain decomposition based deep learning framework for nonlinear partial differential equations. Commun Comput Phys 2020;28:2002-2041

work page 2020
[36]

Dolean V, Heinlein A, Mishra S, Moseley B, Multilevel domain decomposition-based ar- chitectures for physics-informed neural networks. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg 2024;429:117116

work page 2024
[37]

Moseley B, Markham A, Nissen-Meyer T, Finite basis physics-informed neural net- works(FBPINNs): a scalable domain decomposition approach for solving differential equations. Adv. Comput. Math. 2023;49:1-39

work page 2023
[38]

J Comput Phys 2025;530:113914

Si CH, Yan M, Initialization-enhanced physics-informed neural network with domain decompo- sition (IDPINN). J Comput Phys 2025;530:113914

work page 2025
[39]

Hu QF, Basir S, Senocak I, Non-overlapping, Schwarz-type domain decomposition method for physics and equality constrained artificial neural networks. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg 2025;436:117706. 16

work page 2025
[40]

Shang Y, Heinlein A, Mishra S, Wang F, Overlapping Schwarz preconditioners for ran- domized neural networks with domain decomposition. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg 2025;442:118011

work page 2025
[41]

Chaos Solitons Fract 2024;189:115658

Liu Y, Li JY, Zhang LS, Guo LL et al, Symmetry group based domain decomposition to enhance physics-informed neural networks for solving partial differential equations. Chaos Solitons Fract 2024;189:115658

work page 2024
[42]

Eng Appl Artif Intell 2023;126:107183

Hu Z, Jagtap AD, Karniadakis GE, Kawaguchi K, Augmented physics-informed neural networks (APINNs): a gating network-based soft domain decomposition methodology. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2023;126:107183

work page 2023
[43]

J Comput Phys 2025;531:113910

Kim H, Zaki TA, Multi evolutional deep neural networks (Multi-EDNN). J Comput Phys 2025;531:113910. 17

work page 2025