Diffeomorphic Latent Neural Operators for Data-Efficient Learning of Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

Avisha Kumar; Mauro Maggioni; Minglang Yin; Natalia Trayanova; Nicolas Charon; Shiyi Chen; Zan Ahmad

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Diffeomorphic Latent Neural Operators for Data-Efficient Learning of Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that mapping all PDE domains to one reference shape with a map that preserves the differential operator, rather than merely increasing training data, is what makes a latent neural operator accurate and data-efficient…

desk verdict A useful empirical comparison of mapping choices for latent neural operators, but the conformal invariance argument mishandles Neumann boundary data and the experimental evidence is under-powered. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18014 v2 pith:3DIEDKCB submitted 2024-11-27 cs.LG

Zan Ahmad , Shiyi Chen , Minglang Yin , Avisha Kumar , Nicolas Charon , Natalia Trayanova , Mauro Maggioni This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG MSC 68T0735J0530C3065N30

keywords neuraloperatorLaplaceequationconformalmappingSchwarz-ChristoffelLDDMMlatentdata-efficientlearninggeometricgeneralization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a latent neural operator trained on solutions pulled back to a fixed reference domain becomes dramatically more data-efficient when the pullback map preserves the differential operator of the PDE, not merely when the map is smooth and invertible. Working with the 2D Laplace equation on planar domains with one inner hole, it compares conformal maps, LDDMM diffeomorphisms, and discrete optimal transport as transporters of solutions to a fixed ring-shaped reference domain. Because conformal maps leave the Laplacian invariant, the mapped solutions remain true Laplace solutions on the reference domain, so the network needs no geometry information and learns only the boundary-condition-to-solution relationship. This yields 0.26% relative L2 error from 80 conformally mapped training samples, versus 2.56% for LDDMM with 400 samples and 22.4% for optimal transport, showing that mapping design can substitute for large datasets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the conformal invariance of the Laplacian: a harmonic function composed with a conformal map is again harmonic, so a conformal pullback converts the family of Laplace problems on varying domains into one Laplace problem on a fixed reference annulus. The concrete construction composes the inversion h(z)=1/z, which fixes the unit-circle inner boundary, with a Schwarz–Christoffel exterior map g_alpha that sends the unit circle to the target inner boundary, giving $phi_alpha^{{-1}}$=g_alpha∘h; the outer boundary is carried along passively, which keeps all generated domains conformally equivalent. The latent operator F0 on the annulus is then approximated by a neural operator whose inputs are encoded in a physical-condition branch and, except in the conformal case, a geometry branch. In the conformal case no geometry encoding is needed: the mapping has already quotiented out the geometry, so the learning problem reduces to the boundary-condition-to-solution map.

What would settle it

Train the conformal latent operator and test it on target shapes that share the same physical outer-boundary condition but differ strongly in the conformal scale factor along that boundary; if the representation is truly geometry-free, prediction errors should not track that factor, whereas a systematic correlation would expose the residual shape dependence in the pulled-back boundary data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the data efficiency of the latent operator F0 is governed by how faithfully the map preserves the differential operator. For the Laplace equation on doubly connected domains, the paper constructs F0 on a fixed annulus and evaluates three transport maps. The Schwarz–Christoffel conformal map sends each domain to a conformally equivalent annulus; because the Laplacian is conformally invariant, the pulled-back solution is exactly the Laplace solution on the reference domain with the original boundary data pulled back, so the geometry branch of the network can be dropped entirely. LDDMM maps are smooth and invertible but do not preserve angles, so the mapped fields deviate slightly from true Laplace solutions on the annulus, and that small deviation is enough to raise relative L2 error from 0.26% to 2.56% with five times more data. Discrete optimal transport, lacking smoothness, produces noisy mapped solutions and 22.4% error. The paper concludes that even small deviations from PDE preservation degrade neural operator training substantially.

Load-bearing premise

The argument carries if pulling the boundary data back by simple composition with the inverse conformal map is the full and correct way to transport the PDE data, so that the mapped problem is genuinely identical on every target shape; if the map's local stretching along the outer boundary leaves a shape-dependent factor in the boundary term, the geometry has not actually been fully factored out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Choosing a mapping that preserves the differential operator can substitute for training data: 80 conformally mapped samples beat 400 LDDMM-mapped samples by an order of magnitude in relative L2 error.
When the mapping preserves the operator, the geometry encoding is no longer needed (0 PCA modes), reducing the latent learning problem to the boundary-condition-to-solution map on the reference domain.
Small distortions in the mapped solution fields, even ones that are barely visible in plotted comparisons, translate into large performance gaps, so mapping fidelity is a first-order factor in neural operator training.
For harmonic problems on doubly connected domains, the conformal construction makes the latent operator essentially independent of the target geometry, so a single geometry-free model covers the whole family of domains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Going beyond the paper: for any PDE with a known invariance group, the reference map should be taken from that group, and for PDEs without exact invariance the map should be chosen to minimize a pullback-operator penalty rather than geometric distortion alone.
The paper leaves unmeasured the conformal modulus and the boundary scale factors of the generated domains; a testable consequence is that the conformal latent operator's error should not correlate with those quantities, and any correlation would indicate that the pulled-back boundary data carry a shape-dependent factor.
This suggests that in data-scarce applications such as patient-specific modeling, the highest-value investment is in constructing operator-preserving maps for each new geometry rather than collecting more simulation samples across geometries.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper's contribution is a side-by-side comparison of three ways to pull PDE solutions back to a reference domain for neural operator training: conformal (Schwarz-Christoffel), LDDMM, and discrete optimal transport. That comparison is new and useful, and the headline result that conformal maps make training dramatically more data-efficient is plausible. The authors deserve credit for stating the mechanism clearly: the closer the mapped solutions are to solutions of the same PDE on the reference domain, the easier the latent operator is to learn.

But the mechanism as stated is wrong for their actual problem. They solve a Neumann boundary value problem, Eqs. (1)-(3). Under a conformal map with local scale factor c, the pulled-back solution is harmonic, but its Neumann data is c times the pulled-back boundary function, not the pulled-back function alone. Equation (19) omits this factor. Unless c is constant on the boundary (and they never report the modulus or boundary conformal factors), the latent problem still depends on the target geometry through c. That undermines the claim that the conformal representation is geometry-free and that no geometry branch is needed. The empirical gain might still hold, but the explanation is not valid as written.

The experimental support is also thin. Table 1 gives one run per method, no standard deviations, and the methods are trained for different numbers of epochs (1,000 vs 10,000 vs 50,000) with different PCA modes. That conflates mapping quality with training budget. There is no comparison to standard baselines (e.g., DeepONet trained directly on the original domains) and no code or data released. These are fixable, but they should be fixed before the claim is accepted.

The core idea—that operator-preserving maps improve data efficiency in latent neural operators—is sound and worth pursuing. The paper is a reasonable motivating study, but it reads as a preliminary report, not a definitive demonstration. I'd send it to peer review, with the expectation of substantial revision: correct the boundary condition pullback, add error bars and matched training budgets, and include at least one standard baseline.

If you're working on geometry-generalization for neural operators, this is worth a skim for the comparison table alone. But I wouldn't cite it yet.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a latent neural operator framework in which PDE solutions on a family of domains are mapped to a fixed reference domain, and a DeepONet-style operator is trained on the pulled-back solutions. The authors compare three mapping strategies for the 2D Laplace equation on doubly connected domains: conformal Schwarz--Christoffel maps, LDDMM diffeomorphisms, and discrete optimal transport. They report that conformal maps, which preserve the Laplace operator, yield the lowest relative L2 error and the best data efficiency, and they argue that operator-preserving mappings should be preferred when constructing latent neural operators.

Significance. The qualitative claim--that preserving the differential operator when mapping to a latent reference domain improves data efficiency--is well motivated and potentially useful for applications with scarce simulation data. The experimental setup cleanly isolates three mapping families on a PDE with a known conformal invariance, and the visual contrast between the mapped solution fields is informative. However, the paper's central mechanistic explanation has a load-bearing gap: the Neumann boundary data are not transported by simple composition under conformal maps. In addition, the quantitative evidence is thin, with single runs, unequal training budgets, and no error bars. If the boundary-condition issue is corrected and the comparison is made fair, the finding would be a useful empirical contribution; in its current form, the stated interpretation of the results is not supported.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (19), Results and Discussion] Eq. (19) defines the pullback of boundary data as v0_alpha = v_alpha ∘ phi_alpha^{-1}, omitting the conformal scale factor. For the Neumann problem (1)--(3), if u0 = u_alpha ∘ phi_alpha^{-1} with conformal phi_alpha, then a direct calculation gives ∂u0/∂n0 = c_alpha (b_alpha ∘ phi_alpha^{-1}) on the outer boundary, where c_alpha is the local scale factor of the conformal map. Unless c_alpha is constant on the boundary (which it is not for the Joukowski-type inner boundaries used here) or is supplied to the network, the latent operator F0 still depends on alpha through c_alpha. Therefore the statements that conformal maps 'completely factor out' geometry and that 'no geometry branch was required' do not follow from the stated mechanism. The empirical advantage of conformal maps may still hold, but the explanation given in the paper is incorrect as written.
[Table 1] The numerical comparison conflates mapping quality with training budget and model capacity. Conformal maps use 1,000 epochs and zero PCA modes; LDDMM uses 10,000 epochs and 10 PCA modes; discrete OT uses 50,000 epochs and 10 PCA modes. With only one run per method and no standard deviations, the reported relative L2 errors (0.26%, 2.56%, 22.4%) cannot be attributed to the choice of mapping alone. The data-efficiency claim requires matched training budgets, multiple random seeds, and ideally an ablation that gives the conformal case a geometry branch or that trains all methods with the same number of epochs.
[Figure 3 and Results] The sample-size comparison is incomplete. The text says that 80 conformally mapped training samples outperform LDDMM with 400 samples, but no full sample-size curves, error bars, or repeated experiments are provided. It is also unclear whether the LDDMM run at 400 samples uses the same architecture, optimizer, and training schedule as the conformal run at 80 samples; without this information, the comparison does not isolate the effect of the mapping on data efficiency.

minor comments (5)

[Section 'Diffeomorphic Mapping Operator Learning' and Eq. (18)-(19)] The direction of phi_alpha is inconsistent: it is first defined as a C^2 diffeomorphism from Ω0 to Ωα, but in the numerical experiment the pullback uses phi_alpha^{-1} and the text refers to phi_alpha as mapping Ωα to Ω0. Please standardize the notation throughout.
[References] The citations for DeepONet and FNO appear to be swapped: the text attributes DeepONet to Li et al. (2020) and FNO to Lu et al. (2021), whereas the standard references are Lu et al. for DeepONet and Li et al. for FNO.
[Table 1 and Experimental Setup] Several hyperparameters and data-generation details are missing, including the reference annulus radii, mesh resolution, train/test split size, number of test domains, learning rate, optimizer, and network width/depth. These details are needed to reproduce or interpret the reported errors.
[Eq. (5)] The compatibility condition is written with a missing dA in the first integral, and the claim that the second equality follows from the divergence theorem is unclear because it also uses ∇²u = 0; please rewrite the derivation more carefully.
[Figure 3 caption] The caption does not clearly describe the layout: it refers to 'first three columns' and a 'rightmost panel,' but the figure appears to contain multiple grouped columns per mapping method. Please clarify the arrangement of rows and columns.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-by-construction: the conformal-map advantage is a measured outcome; only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation to the authors' Dimon paper keeps the score at 2.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation: conformally mapped solutions are compared against LDDMM and discrete-OT mappings in a MIONet-style latent operator, and the reported 0.26% versus 2.56% relative L2 errors are measured outcomes. The claim that conformal maps preserve the Laplace equation rests on an external mathematical theorem (Parker and Rosenberg 1987) and on conformal maps computed with the Schwarz–Christoffel toolbox; neither is equivalent to the paper's inputs. The latent representation u0_alpha = u_alpha composed with phi_alpha^{-1} (Eq. 19) is a data-transport step, not a fitted parameter, and the network is trained on true pulled-back solution fields, so the prediction errors are not forced by construction. No fitted constant is later renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The only self-citation with substantial author overlap is the framework adapted from Yin et al. 2024 (Dimon); it supplies the general diffeomorphic-operator pipeline but does not by itself imply the conformal data-efficiency result, which is newly tested here. One caveat belongs to correctness, not circularity: under a conformal map, a Neumann condition pulls back with a boundary scale factor |phi'|, so Eq. (19) omits a shape-dependent factor and the statement that conformally mapped solutions 'match the true Laplace solution with the same original boundary conditions' is not literally justified. That error, if sustained, undermines the 'geometry is completely factored out' explanation, but it does not make the numerical comparison circular. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation to Dimon.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard conformal mapping theory, on the unverified assumption that simple pullback of Neumann data is the correct transport, and on several unreported experimental choices (PCA modes, epochs, hyperparameters, domain modulus). No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)

Number of PCA modes for geometry branch = 10 for LDDMM and OT, 0 for conformal
Chosen per method; the paper does not describe a principled selection. It directly affects model capacity and the comparison.
Training epochs per method = 1,000 (conformal), 10,000 (LDDMM), 50,000 (OT)
Stopping criteria are not reported, so differences in error may reflect training budget rather than mapping quality.
DeepONet/MIONet hyperparameters = not reported
Network width, depth, learning rate, optimizer, and loss weights are not given; they affect the achieved accuracy.
Reference annulus radii and domain modulus = not reported
The outer radius and the resulting conformal factor on boundaries determine how much geometry variation remains after mapping; the paper states radii are fixed but does not report values.
LDDMM and OT parameters = not reported
Kernel width, regularization weight, point-cloud sizes, and cost functions are not specified.

assumptions (4)

standard math The 2D Laplacian is invariant under conformal maps: if u is harmonic and phi is conformal, then u composed with phi is harmonic.
Invoked in Section '2D Conformal Mapping' and used to claim the conformal representation preserves the PDE.
domain assumption All generated target domains are conformally equivalent to the reference annulus with the same modulus.
The paper states the inner radius is fixed and the outer boundary is deformed passively so domains are conformally equivalent; this is needed for a single conformal map to an annulus to exist.
domain assumption Composing the boundary condition with the inverse map, v0 = v composed with phi^{-1}, is a sufficient transport of the PDE input data.
Defined in Eq. (19); for Neumann data, a conformal map changes the boundary integral by the local scale factor, so this assumption is questionable.
domain assumption A finite set of training samples and the chosen DeepONet architecture can approximate the latent operator F0 well enough for the comparison to reflect properties of the mapping.
Implicit in all neural operator experiments; no approximation guarantees are used.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffeomorphic Latent Neural Operators for Data-Efficient Learning of Solutions to Partial Differential Equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DIEDKCB

@misc{pith2026241118014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffeomorphic Latent Neural Operators for Data-Efficient Learning of Solutions to Partial Differential Equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DIEDKCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18014}
}

read the original abstract

A computed approximation of the solution operator to a system of partial differential equations (PDEs) is needed in various areas of science and engineering. Neural operators have been shown to be quite effective at predicting these solution generators after training on high-fidelity ground truth data (e.g. numerical simulations). However, in order to generalize well to unseen spatial domains, neural operators must be trained on an extensive amount of geometrically varying data samples that may not be feasible to acquire or simulate in certain contexts (e.g., patient-specific medical data, large-scale computationally intensive simulations.) We propose that in order to learn a PDE solution operator that can generalize across multiple domains without needing to sample enough data expressive enough for all possible geometries, we can train instead a latent neural operator on just a few ground truth solution fields diffeomorphically mapped from different geometric/spatial domains to a fixed reference configuration. Furthermore, the form of the solutions is dependent on the choice of mapping to and from the reference domain. We emphasize that preserving properties of the differential operator when constructing these mappings can significantly reduce the data requirement for achieving an accurate model due to the regularity of the solution fields that the latent neural operator is training on. We provide motivating numerical experimentation that demonstrates an extreme case of this consideration by exploiting the conformal invariance of the Laplacian

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18014 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Schematics for φ −1 computation via the extermap function in sc-toolbox. • zk are the pre-images of the polygon’s vertices on the unit disk or upper half-plane, • ωk are the interior angles at the vertices, scaled relative to π, • C is an additive constant of integration. This integral describes a holomorphic function that maps the source domain (e.g., the unit disk) to a polygonal target domain, preserving angles a… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of mapping approaches (SC-Map, LDDMM, and Discrete OT) for the Laplace solutions on doubly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Visual comparison of mappings φα : Ωα → Ω0 for different approaches—LDDMM, Schwarz-Christoffel (SC) map, and discrete optimal transport (OT)—and their impact on the Laplace solution. The true Laplace solution on the original domain Ωα is mapped to the reference domain…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

F.; Miller, M

Beg, M. F.; Miller, M. I.; Trouv \'e , A.; and Younes, L. 2005. Computing large deformation metric mappings via geodesic flows of diffeomorphisms. International journal of computer vision, 61: 139--157

work page 2005
[4]

Cao, Q.; Goswami, S.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2024. Laplace neural operator for solving differential equations. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(6): 631--640

work page 2024
[5]

Driscoll, T. 2002. Schwarz-Christoffel mapping. Cambridge University Press

work page 2002
[6]

Driscoll, T. A. 1996. Algorithm 756: A MATLAB toolbox for Schwarz-Christoffel mapping. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 22(2): 168--186

work page 1996
[7]

Jin, P.; Meng, S.; and Lu, L. 2022. MIONet: Learning multiple-input operators via tensor product. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 44(6): A3490--A3514

work page 2022
[8]

Karpfinger, C. 2022. Conformal Mappings. In Calculus and Linear Algebra in Recipes: Terms, phrases and numerous examples in short learning units, 941--950. Springer

work page 2022

Show all 20 references

[9]

Kovachki, N.; Li, Z.; Liu, B.; Azizzadenesheli, K.; Bhattacharya, K.; Stuart, A.; and Anandkumar, A. 2023. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(89): 1--97

2023
[10]

Kuhn, H. W. 1955. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval research logistics quarterly, 2(1-2): 83--97

1955
[11]

Z.; Liu, B.; and Anandkumar, A

Li, Z.; Huang, D. Z.; Liu, B.; and Anandkumar, A. 2023. Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(388): 1--26

2023
[12]

Li, Z.; Kovachki, N.; Azizzadenesheli, K.; Liu, B.; Bhattacharya, K.; Stuart, A.; and Anandkumar, A. 2020. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895

2020 arXiv
[13]

Liu-Schiaffini, M.; Berner, J.; Bonev, B.; Kurth, T.; Azizzadenesheli, K.; and Anandkumar, A. 2024. Neural operators with localized integral and differential kernels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16845

2024 arXiv
[14]

E.; Ahmad, Z.; Ali, S

Loeffler, S. E.; Ahmad, Z.; Ali, S. Y.; Yamamoto, C.; Popescu, D. M.; Yee, A.; Lal, Y.; Trayanova, N.; and Maggioni, M. 2024. Graph Fourier Neural Kernels (G-FuNK): Learning Solutions of Nonlinear Diffusive Parametric PDEs on Multiple Domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04655

2024 arXiv
[15]

Lu, L.; Jin, P.; Pang, G.; Zhang, Z.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2021. Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature machine intelligence, 3(3): 218--229

2021
[16]

Parker, T.; and Rosenberg, S. 1987. Invariants of conformal Laplacians. Journal of differential geometry, 25(2): 199--222

1987
[17]

Peyr \'e , G.; Cuturi, M.; et al. 2019. Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 11(5-6): 355--607

2019
[18]

Yin, M.; Charon, N.; Brody, R.; Lu, L.; Trayanova, N.; and Maggioni, M. 2024. Dimon: Learning solution operators of partial differential equations on a diffeomorphic family of domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07250

2024 arXiv
[19]

Younes, L. 2010. Shapes and diffeomorphisms, volume 171. Springer

2010
[20]

Zhao, Z.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Chen, Z.; and Liu, X. 2024. Diffeomorphism Neural Operator for various domains and parameters of partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12475

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

F.; Miller, M

Beg, M. F.; Miller, M. I.; Trouv \'e , A.; and Younes, L. 2005. Computing large deformation metric mappings via geodesic flows of diffeomorphisms. International journal of computer vision, 61: 139--157

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Cao, Q.; Goswami, S.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2024. Laplace neural operator for solving differential equations. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(6): 631--640

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Driscoll, T. 2002. Schwarz-Christoffel mapping. Cambridge University Press

work page 2002

[6] [6]

Driscoll, T. A. 1996. Algorithm 756: A MATLAB toolbox for Schwarz-Christoffel mapping. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 22(2): 168--186

work page 1996

[7] [7]

Jin, P.; Meng, S.; and Lu, L. 2022. MIONet: Learning multiple-input operators via tensor product. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 44(6): A3490--A3514

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Karpfinger, C. 2022. Conformal Mappings. In Calculus and Linear Algebra in Recipes: Terms, phrases and numerous examples in short learning units, 941--950. Springer

work page 2022