Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 71 references

ReBaNO: Reduced Basis Neural Operator Mitigating Generalization Gaps and Achieving Discretization Invariance

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ReBaNO builds a neural operator from a handful of PINN solutions, closing generalization gaps and achieving true mesh invariance.

desk verdict A genuinely new reduced-basis-plus-PINN operator learner with attractive data-lean properties, but the headline claims outrun the evidence: online cost is high, the discretization-invariance test is confounded, and several uniqueness claims lack support. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09611 v1 pith:CG4POSYG submitted 2025-09-11 cs.LG cs.NAmath.NA

Haolan Zheng , Yanlai Chen , Jiequn Han , Yue Yu This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.NAmath.NA
keywords reducedbasismethodneuraloperatorphysics-informednetworkdiscretizationinvariancegeneralizationgapgreedyalgorithmout-of-distributionknowledgedistillation
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

This paper claims that the generalization failures and mesh dependence of neural operators can be avoided by constructing the operator as a linear combination of a small number of full physics-informed neural network (PINN) solutions selected greedily. The resulting method, ReBaNO, needs no paired training data offline, only a few full-order PINN solves, and its online prediction is a one-layer network whose hidden neurons are pre-trained PINNs. On Poisson, Darcy flow, and Navier-Stokes benchmarks, the authors report that ReBaNO outperforms PCA-Net, DeepONet, FNO, and CNO in closing the gap between training and test error, especially for out-of-distribution inputs, and is the only method whose error is unchanged when the grid resolution changes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reduced basis of PINN solutions {u_i^PINN} built by a mathematically rigorous greedy algorithm (Algorithm 1): starting from one random full-order solve, at each step the input with the largest residual loss of the current rank-n surrogate is chosen, and its PINN solution is added as a new hidden neuron. The online solver then minimizes the same residual loss (Eq. 14) over the coefficients c, using precomputed derivatives; for linear PDEs this collapses to a small least-squares problem.

What would settle it

Run ReBaNO on an advection-dominated problem with a boundary layer; if the greedy indicator selects basis inputs that do not resolve the layer, and online solutions have small PDE residual but large L2 error compared to a high-fidelity solver, the central claim would be falsified. Alternatively, find a PDE where the residual minimum is non-unique and the chosen coefficients produce poor predictions despite small residual.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ReBaNO treats each full-order PINN solution as a neuron and constructs a rank-N surrogate space by a greedy algorithm that repeatedly adds the PINN solution of the input for which the current surrogate's PDE-residual loss is largest. Online, a new input is mapped to coefficients by minimizing the same residual loss over the linear combination; because the basis functions are mesh-free PINNs and all derivatives are precomputed, the prediction is indifferent to discretization. In all three benchmarks, ReBaNO had test/training error ratios near 1 for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution inputs, while data-driven models showed gaps of 1.5x to 30x, and its accuracy remained flat when grid

Load-bearing premise

The greedy selection and online coefficient solve both rely on the PDE residual loss being a trustworthy proxy for the actual solution error; the paper provides no certified error bound for this proxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ReBaNO works as claimed, operator learning no longer requires large labeled training datasets: 8-48 full-order PINN solves replace thousands of input-output pairs.
  • The online solve is physics-informed per test instance, which is why out-of-distribution generalization gaps shrink compared to purely data-driven operators.
  • Strict discretization invariance follows because the basis functions are continuous mesh-free functions (PINNs), not grid-dependent features; this is the only method in the comparison that does not degrade under resolution changes.
  • ReBaNO is data-lean in the sense that it does not need high-fidelity training data for the operator, only for the handful of selected basis solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the residual loss is a trustworthy error indicator (which the paper assumes but does not certify), the same greedy construction could be applied to any PDE family with a stable weak form, including inverse problems or time-dependent controls, giving a physics-driven alternative to transfer learning.
  • The method's online cost scales with the number of reduced basis functions and the cost of evaluating PINNs; for problems requiring many basis functions, the greedy selection may become expensive, but one could replace full PINNs with cheaper surrogate solvers as activations without losing the framework.
  • The reported discretization invariance suggests a testable extension: train ReBaNO on one grid and evaluate on an adaptively refined mesh in regions of high gradients; if accuracy stays flat, it would support the claim of true continuous-discrete equivalence rather than mere insensitivity to uniform resolution.
  • Since the paper defers convergence analysis, an immediate research question is whether the greedy residual indicator yields provable convergence rates like classical reduced basis methods; if not, the method's robustness in adversarial PDEs is an open question.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ReBaNO, a physics-informed operator learning method that builds a one-hidden-layer network whose activation functions are full PINN solutions selected greedily from a training input set. Online, for a new input, only the linear coefficients are tuned by minimizing the PDE residual. The authors claim that ReBaNO is data-lean, has minimal online computational cost, is mathematically rigorous due to the greedy basis construction, shrinks the generalization gap relative to PCA-Net, DeepONet, FNO, CNO, and PINO, and is the only operator learner with strict discretization invariance. These claims are tested on 1D Poisson, 2D Darcy flow, and 2D Navier-Stokes problems, with in-distribution and out-of-distribution tasks and a resolution-transfer experiment.

Significance. If the central claims held, ReBaNO would be a genuinely useful contribution: a physics-driven operator learner with adaptive basis construction, no paired training data, and strong generalization. The paper has tangible strengths: the code is available, the method is clearly positioned within the encoder-decoder framework, and the greedy residual-based selection is a sensible adaptation of reduced-basis ideas to PINN-based surrogates. The three benchmark problems are standard and the comparisons include both data-driven and physics-informed baselines. However, several headline claims are not supported by the paper's own numerical evidence, and the most distinctive claim, strict discretization invariance, rests on a comparison that appears to be confounded. The underlying algorithmic idea remains interesting, but the manuscript needs substantial revision before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figure 5 Right] The 'strict discretization invariance' claim is confounded. ReBaNO's online phase minimizes the physics loss Eq. (14), which requires f evaluated on the collocation set C_R (Eq. 15). The paper never states how f is represented to ReBaNO when the test input is provided only on a varying s-point grid. If ReBaNO evaluates f on its own fixed or continuous functional representation while FNO and CNO only receive the s discrete samples, the flat error curve in Figure 5 Right is an artifact of asymmetric information, not a learned discretization-invariant operator. At minimum, the authors must specify the exact representation and interpolation procedure for f in the resolution test, and rerun the comparison under identical input information. The claim that ReBaNO is 'the only operator learning algorithm achieving strict discretization invariance' is not established by the current experiment, an
  2. [Abstract and Table 3] The abstract's claim of 'minimal computational cost online' is contradicted by Table 3. For Poisson, ReBaNO inference is 0.399 s per case versus 1.235 ms for FNO and 3.698 ms for PINO; for Darcy flow it is 1.940 s versus 4.222 ms for CNO; for Navier-Stokes it is 14.092 s versus 4.919 ms for CNO. ReBaNO is three to four orders of magnitude slower in online inference. The paper even reports 5000 online fine-tuning epochs for Navier-Stokes. This is not 'minimal computational cost' under any standard reading, and it materially affects the efficiency contribution claimed in the introduction and conclusion.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Table 2] The claim that ReBaNO 'significantly outperforms' baselines in shrinking the generalization gap is not supported by Table 2. For Poisson, the OOD mean error ratio of ReBaNO is 6.975, essentially identical to FNO's 6.976 and worse than PINO's 4.090; the absolute OOD mean error of ReBaNO is 0.023 versus PINO's 0.007. The text states 'PINO achieves the smallest ratio in the OOD test while ReBaNO yields the smallest errors,' which is contradicted by the table. For Navier-Stokes, ReBaNO's absolute errors (0.036 train, 0.072 OOD) are far larger than FNO's (0.002, 0.013) and CNO's (0.004, 0.044). The only metric on which ReBaNO can be said to 'shrink the gap' is the ratio e_test/e_train, and even there the advantage is not uniform. The paper must either soften the superiority claim or define precisely what 'outperforms' means and defend it against the absolute-error numbers.
  4. [Section 4.3, Algorithm 1, and Section 6] The abstract and contribution list call the greedy algorithm 'mathematically rigorous,' but no a posteriori error bound or certified residual-to-error estimator is provided. Algorithm 1 selects basis inputs by minimizing L_p (Eq. 14), yet there is no proof that a small physics loss controls the true approximation error in the relevant function norm; the paper itself defers convergence analysis to future work. The reasoning is not circular, and the greedy selection is a legitimate heuristic, but without a bound the adjective 'rigorous' is an overstatement. The authors should either supply a residual-based error estimate for the ReBaNO surrogate or replace 'rigorous' with language appropriate to an empirical greedy strategy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The VPINN/RVPINN formulations cite two references as '[?]' instead of actual citations; these should be filled in. The notation L_b and L_i is introduced but not consistently used later.
  2. [Section 1] There is a typo in 'strict discretizations invariance' (should be 'discretization invariance'). The informal tone of 'ReBaNo' vs. 'ReBaNO' should be unified.
  3. [Table 3] The inference time column is labeled 'infer time/N test'; it would help to state explicitly whether the reported numbers are per test case or averaged over the 200/1000 test cases. The parameter counts like '8+901×8' are opaque and deserve a brief explanation.
  4. [Section 5.1] The ablation study in Figure 5 Left compares greedy with random selection but reports only the largest loss, not the mean or median, and does not show the corresponding test errors. A boxplot or additional statistics would make the advantage of the greedy strategy more convincing.
  5. [Section 5.2] The Darcy flow experiment uses RVPINN as the high-fidelity solver, whereas the Poisson and Navier-Stokes experiments use plain PINNs. The paper does not discuss whether this choice affects the comparison or the internal consistency of the ReBaNO framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; ReBaNO's physics-residual-driven construction is self-contained.

full rationale

ReBaNO's derivation chain is self-contained. The reduced basis is selected offline by Algorithm 1 using the physics-residual indicator Δ_{n-1}(f)=min_c L_p[Ψ_{n-1}(f);c], and the online coefficients are the minimizers of the same residual in Eq. (34); the reported test errors are relative L2 errors against high-fidelity PDE solutions, which are never used in either the greedy selection or the online solve. Thus the method does not fit a parameter to the quantity it later 'predicts'. The self-citations (GPT-PINN, Chen & Koohy [15]) are motivational rather than load-bearing; the central construction is the paper's own residual-based greedy algorithm and is benchmarked against external baselines. The main caveats are evidential rather than circular: the discretization-invariance comparison is asymmetric (ReBaNO can evaluate f on its own collocation grid while FNO/CNO receive only s-point samples), no a posteriori error bound justifies L_p as a greedy indicator, and the VPINN/RVPINN citations are unresolved placeholders ('[?]') with convergence analysis deferred to future work. These concerns weaken evidential support but do not make the central derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

ReBaNO introduces no new physical entities. Its assumptions are standard domain assumptions about solution manifolds and residual reliability, not novel postulates. The main free parameters are hyperparameters of the PINN basis and the online optimization.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of reduced basis neurons N = 8 (Poisson), 48 (Darcy), 20 (Navier-Stokes)
    Chosen by hand per benchmark. The central claims of accuracy and cost depend on N, but no sensitivity study is provided.
  • PINN architecture and training epochs = [1,20,20,20,1] with 40000 epochs (Poisson), [2,40,40,40,40,40,40,1] with 60000 epochs (Darcy), [3,20,20,20,20,20,20,2] w
    These hyperparameters determine the quality of the basis functions and are fixed without validation of the resulting full-order accuracy.
  • Online fine-tuning epochs = 100 (Poisson and Darcy), 5000 (Navier-Stokes)
    The online solve cost and accuracy depend on these values; they are chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The PDE residual loss L_p (Eq. 14) is a reliable indicator of approximation error for greedy selection and online tuning.
    Algorithm 1 selects inputs by minimizing L_p, and online prediction minimizes L_p. No a posteriori error bound or certified estimator is provided, unlike classical RBM.
  • domain assumption The full-order PINN solutions are sufficiently accurate to serve as a high-fidelity reduced basis.
    Section 4.1 defines the high-fidelity operator Psi_h as a PINN solver, but no validation of PINN accuracy is reported. The final solution is a linear combination of these PINNs.
  • domain assumption The solution manifold of the parametric PDE is low-dimensional enough to be approximated by N=8, 48, or 20 basis functions.
    The whole method depends on this low-dimensionality; no convergence study with respect to N is shown.
  • domain assumption The discrete input set F used for greedy selection is representative of the test distribution, including OOD inputs.
    OOD inputs are sampled from a different covariance, yet the basis is selected only from in-distribution F. The paper does not justify why this should generalize.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ReBaNO: Reduced Basis Neural Operator Mitigating Generalization Gaps and Achieving Discretization Invariance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CG4POSYG

@misc{pith2026250909611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ReBaNO: Reduced Basis Neural Operator Mitigating Generalization Gaps and Achieving Discretization Invariance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CG4POSYG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09611}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a novel data-lean operator learning algorithm, the Reduced Basis Neural Operator (ReBaNO), to solve a group of PDEs with multiple distinct inputs. Inspired by the Reduced Basis Method and the recently introduced Generative Pre-Trained Physics-Informed Neural Networks, ReBaNO relies on a mathematically rigorous greedy algorithm to build its network structure offline adaptively from the ground up. Knowledge distillation via task-specific activation function allows ReBaNO to have a compact architecture requiring minimal computational cost online while embedding physics. In comparison to state-of-the-art operator learning algorithms such as PCA-Net, DeepONet, FNO, and CNO, numerical results demonstrate that ReBaNO significantly outperforms them in terms of eliminating/shrinking the generalization gap for both in- and out-of-distribution tests and being the only operator learning algorithm achieving strict discretization invariance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The key workflow of operator learning models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematics of ReBaNO. Given an input function, the nonlinear encoder encodes it to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Poisson: inputs and true outputs in the OOD test resulted in worst case errors for each model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Poisson OOD test pointwise (top) and 𝐿 2 relative (bottom) errors. Each subfigure on the top part in each row presents pointwise errors given by the six models for the cases that result in the worst-test-error cases of PCA-Net, DeepONet, FNO, CNO, PINO, and ReBaNO (fro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Poisson ablation test on greedy algorithm, showing the largest loss as the number of neurons, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Darcy flow: inputs and true outputs in OOD test that result in worst case errors. PCA-Net is composed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Darcy flow OOD test pointwise (top) and 𝐿 2 relative (bottom) errors. Each subfigure on the top part in each row presents pointwise errors given by the five models on the cases that result in the worst-test-error cases of PCA-Net, DeepONet, FNO, CNO and ReBaNO (from to…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Navier-Stokes: inputs and true outputs of the vorticity resulted in worst case test errors. PCA-Net is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Navier-Stokes OOD test pointwise (top) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Neural Operator: Graph Kernel Network for Partial Differential Equations

    Anima Anandkumar, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, and Andrew Stuart. Neural Operator: Graph Kernel Network for Partial Differential Equations. InICLR 2020 Workshop on Integration of Deep Neural Models and Differential Equations, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Representation Equivalent Neural Operators: A Framework for Alias-free Operator Learning

    Francesca Bartolucci, Emmanuel de Bezenac, Bogdan Raonic, Roberto Molinaro, Siddhartha Mishra, and Rima Alaifari. Representation Equivalent Neural Operators: A Framework for Alias-free Operator Learning. InThirty-Seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. 23 Figure 9: Navier-Stokes OOD test pointwise (top) and𝐿2 relative (bottom) e...

    2023

  3. [3]

    A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems.SIAM Review, 57(4):483–531, jan 2015

    P Benner, S Gugercin, and K Willcox. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems.SIAM Review, 57(4):483–531, jan 2015

    2015

  4. [4]

    finite-element

    Gilles Besnard, François Hild, and Stéphane Roux. “finite-element” displacement fields analysis from digital images: application to portevin–le châtelier bands.Experimental mechanics, 46(6):789–803, 2006

    2006

  5. [5]

    Kovachki, and Andrew M

    Kaushik Bhattacharya, Bamdad Hosseini, Nikola B. Kovachki, and Andrew M. Stuart. Model Reduction AndNeuralNetworksForParametricPDEs.TheSMAIJournalofcomputationalmathematics,7:121–157, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Convergence rates for greedy algorithms in reduced basis methods.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 43(3):1457–1472, 2011

    P Binev, Albert Cohen, W Dahmen, R Devore, G Petrova, and P Wojtaszczyk. Convergence rates for greedy algorithms in reduced basis methods.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 43(3):1457–1472, 2011

    2011

  7. [7]

    Convergenceanderrorcontrol of consistent PINNs for elliptic PDEs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09217, 2025

    AndreaBonito,RonaldDeVore,GuerganaPetrova,andJonathanW.Siegel. Convergenceanderrorcontrol of consistent PINNs for elliptic PDEs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09217, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Springer, 2008

    Susanne C Brenner.The mathematical theory of finite element methods. Springer, 2008

    2008

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Model reduction on manifolds: A differential geometric framework.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 468:134299, 2024

    Patrick Buchfink, Silke Glas, Bernard Haasdonk, and Benjamin Unger. Model reduction on manifolds: A differential geometric framework.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 468:134299, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review.Acta Mechanica Sinica, pages 1–12, 2022

    ShengzeCai,ZhipingMao,ZhichengWang,MinglangYin,andGeorgeEmKarniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review.Acta Mechanica Sinica, pages 1–12, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Choose a transformer: Fourier or galerkin.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:24924–24940, 2021

    Shuhao Cao. Choose a transformer: Fourier or galerkin.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:24924–24940, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Machine learning and the physical sciences.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045002, 2019

    Giuseppe Carleo, Ignacio Cirac, Kyle Cranmer, Laurent Daudet, Maria Schuld, Naftali Tishby, Leslie Vogt-Maranto, and Lenka Zdeborová. Machine learning and the physical sciences.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045002, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Chen and H

    T. Chen and H. Chen. Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems.IEEE transactions on neural networks, 6:911–917, 1995

    1995

  6. [14]

    TGPT-PINN: Nonlinear model reduction with transformed GPT-PINNs.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 430:117198, 2024

    Yanlai Chen, Yajie Ji, Akil Narayan, and Zhenli Xu. TGPT-PINN: Nonlinear model reduction with transformed GPT-PINNs.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 430:117198, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    GPT-PINN: Generative pre-trained physics-informed neural networks toward non-intrusive meta-learning of parametric pdes.Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 228:104047, 2024

    Yanlai Chen and Shawn Koohy. GPT-PINN: Generative pre-trained physics-informed neural networks toward non-intrusive meta-learning of parametric pdes.Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 228:104047, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    de Hoop, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Elizabeth Qian, and Andrew M

    Maarten V. de Hoop, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Elizabeth Qian, and Andrew M. Stuart. The Cost-Accuracy Trade-Off in Operator Learning with Neural Networks.Journal of Machine Learning, 1:299–341, 2022. 25

    2022

  9. [17]

    Approximation rates of deeponets for learning operators arising from advection–diffusion equations.Neural Networks, 153:411–426, 2022

    Beichuan Deng, Yeonjong Shin, Lu Lu, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Approximation rates of deeponets for learning operators arising from advection–diffusion equations.Neural Networks, 153:411–426, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    One-shot transfer learning of physics-informed neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11286, 2021

    Shaan Desai, Marios Mattheakis, Hayden Joy, Pavlos Protopapas, and Stephen Roberts. One-shot transfer learning of physics-informed neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11286, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Machine-learning-assisted modeling.Physics Today, 74(7):36–41, 2021

    Weinan E, Jiequn Han, and Linfeng Zhang. Machine-learning-assisted modeling.Physics Today, 74(7):36–41, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Limitations of physics informed machine learning for nonlinear two-phase transport in porous media.Journal of Machine Learning for Modeling and Computing, 1(1), 2020

    Olga Fuks and Hamdi A Tchelepi. Limitations of physics informed machine learning for nonlinear two-phase transport in porous media.Journal of Machine Learning for Modeling and Computing, 1(1), 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Knowledge-based modeling of material behavior with neural networks.Journal of engineering mechanics, 117(1):132–153, 1991

    J Ghaboussi, JH Garrett Jr, and Xiping Wu. Knowledge-based modeling of material behavior with neural networks.Journal of engineering mechanics, 117(1):132–153, 1991

    1991

  14. [22]

    Autoprogressive training of neural network constitutive models.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 42(1):105–126, 1998

    Jamshid Ghaboussi, David A Pecknold, Mingfu Zhang, and Rami M Haj-Ali. Autoprogressive training of neural network constitutive models.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 42(1):105–126, 1998

    1998

  15. [23]

    Loss landscape engineering via data regulation on pinns.Machine Learning with Applications, 12:100464, 2023

    Vignesh Gopakumar, Stanislas Pamela, and Debasmita Samaddar. Loss landscape engineering via data regulation on pinns.Machine Learning with Applications, 12:100464, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Transfer learning enhanced physics informed neural network for phase-field modeling of fracture.Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 106:102447, 2020

    Somdatta Goswami, Cosmin Anitescu, Souvik Chakraborty, and Timon Rabczuk. Transfer learning enhanced physics informed neural network for phase-field modeling of fracture.Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 106:102447, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Physics-informeddeepneural operator networks

    SomdattaGoswami,AniruddhaBora,YueYu,andGeorgeEmKarniadakis. Physics-informeddeepneural operator networks. InMachine Learning in Modeling and Simulation: Methods and Applications, pages 219–254. Springer, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Multiwavelet-based operator learning for differential equations.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:24048–24062, 2021

    Gaurav Gupta, Xiongye Xiao, and Paul Bogdan. Multiwavelet-based operator learning for differential equations.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:24048–24062, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Bernard Haasdonk.Chapter 2: Reduced Basis Methods for Parametrized PDEs: A Tutorial Introduction for Stationary and Instationary Problems, pages 65–136

  20. [28]

    An equivariant neural operator for developing nonlocal tensorial constitutive models.Journal of Computational Physics, 488:112243, 2023

    Jiequn Han, Xu-Hui Zhou, and Heng Xiao. An equivariant neural operator for developing nonlocal tensorial constitutive models.Journal of Computational Physics, 488:112243, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Manifoldlearningbaseddata-driven modeling for soft biological tissues.Journal of Biomechanics, 117:110124, 2021

    QizhiHe,DevinWLaurence,Chung-HaoLee,andJiun-ShyanChen. Manifoldlearningbaseddata-driven modeling for soft biological tissues.Journal of Biomechanics, 117:110124, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    SpringerBriefs in Mathematics

    JanS.Hesthaven,GianluigiRozza,andBenjaminStamm.Certifiedreducedbasismethodsforparametrized partial differential equations. SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham; BCAM Basque Center for Applied Mathematics, Bilbao, 2016. BCAM SpringerBriefs. 26

    2016

  23. [31]

    Peridynamic neural operators: A data-driven nonlocal constitutive model for complex material responses.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 425:116914, 2024

    Siavash Jafarzadeh, Stewart Silling, Ning Liu, Zhongqiang Zhang, and Yue Yu. Peridynamic neural operators: A data-driven nonlocal constitutive model for complex material responses.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 425:116914, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Physics-informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    George Em Karniadakis, Ioannis G Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, and Liu Yang. Physics-informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Meta-learning loss functions of parametric partial differential equations using physics-informed neural networks

    Michail Koumpanakis and Ricardo Vilalta. Meta-learning loss functions of parametric partial differential equations using physics-informed neural networks. InInternational Conference on Discovery Science, pages 183–197. Springer, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Onuniversalapproximationanderrorbounds for fourier neural operators.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(290):1–76, 2021

    NikolaKovachki,SamuelLanthaler,andSiddharthaMishra. Onuniversalapproximationanderrorbounds for fourier neural operators.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(290):1–76, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Chapter9-Operatorlearning: Algorithms and analysis

    NikolaB.Kovachki, SamuelLanthaler, andAndrewM.Stuart. Chapter9-Operatorlearning: Algorithms and analysis. In Siddhartha Mishra and Alex Townsend, editors,Handbook of Numerical Analysis, volume 25 ofNumerical Analysis Meets Machine Learning, pages 419–467. Elsevier, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(89):1–97, 2023

    NikolaBKovachki,ZongyiLi,BurigedeLiu,KamyarAzizzadenesheli,KaushikBhattacharya,AndrewM Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(89):1–97, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Galerkin proper orthogonal decomposition methods for a general equation in fluid dynamics.SIAM J

    K Kunisch and S Volkwein. Galerkin proper orthogonal decomposition methods for a general equation in fluid dynamics.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 40(2):492—-515 (electronic), 2002

    2002

  30. [38]

    Operator learning with PCA-Net: upper and lower complexity bounds.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(318):1–67, 2023

    Samuel Lanthaler. Operator learning with PCA-Net: upper and lower complexity bounds.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(318):1–67, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Data-drivendesignformetamaterials and multiscale systems: A review.Advanced Materials, 36(8):2305254, 2024

    DoksooLee,WeiChen,LiweiWang,Yu-ChinChan,andWeiChen. Data-drivendesignformetamaterials and multiscale systems: A review.Advanced Materials, 36(8):2305254, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    SIAM, 2007

    Randall J LeVeque.Finite difference methods for ordinary and partial differential equations: steady-state and time-dependent problems. SIAM, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:NeurIPS 2020, 2020

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Andrew Stuart, Kaushik Bhat- tacharya, and Anima Anandkumar. Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:NeurIPS 2020, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Borislavov Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Physics-Informed Neural Operator for Learning Partial Differential Equations.ACM / IMS J

    Zongyi Li, Hongkai Zheng, Nikola Kovachki, David Jin, Haoxuan Chen, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, and Anima Anandkumar. Physics-Informed Neural Operator for Learning Partial Differential Equations.ACM / IMS J. Data Sci., 1:9:1–9:27, 2024. 27

    2024

  36. [44]

    Domain agnostic fourier neural operators.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    Ning Liu, Siavash Jafarzadeh, and Yue Yu. Domain agnostic fourier neural operators.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Rajanna, Edward W

    Ning Liu, Xuxiao Li, Manoj R. Rajanna, Edward W. Reutzel, Brady Sawyer, Prahalada Rao, Jim Lua, Nam Phan, and Yue Yu. Deep neural operator enabled digital twin modeling for additive manufacturing. Advances in Computational Science and Engineering, 2:174–201, Sun Sep 01 00:00:0...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators.Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(3):218–229, 2021

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators.Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(3):218–229, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    A comprehensive and fair comparison of two neural operators (with practical extensions) based on fair data.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 393:114778, 2022

    LuLu, XuhuiMeng, ShengzeCai, ZhipingMao, SomdattaGoswami, ZhongqiangZhang, andGeorgeEm Karniadakis. A comprehensive and fair comparison of two neural operators (with practical extensions) based on fair data.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 393:114778, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Transolver++: An Accurate Neural Solver for PDEs on Million-Scale Geometries

    Huakun Luo, Haixu Wu, Hang Zhou, Lanxiang Xing, Yichen Di, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Transolver++: An Accurate Neural Solver for PDEs on Million-Scale Geometries. InForty-Second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    A reduced-basis element method.Journal of scientific computing, 17:447–459, 2002

    Yvon Maday and Einar M Rønquist. A reduced-basis element method.Journal of scientific computing, 17:447–459, 2002

    2002

  42. [50]

    Weakbaselinesandreportingbiasesleadtooveroptimisminmachine learning for fluid-related partial differential equations.Nature Machine Intelligence, pages 1–14, 2024

    NickMcGreivyandAmmarHakim. Weakbaselinesandreportingbiasesleadtooveroptimisminmachine learning for fluid-related partial differential equations.Nature Machine Intelligence, pages 1–14, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Integral Autoencoder Network for Discretization- Invariant Learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23:1–45, 2022

    Yong Zheng Ong, Zuowei Shen, and Haizhao Yang. Integral Autoencoder Network for Discretization- Invariant Learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23:1–45, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Ab initio solution of the many-electron schrödinger equation with deep neural networks.Physical Review Research, 2(3):033429, 2020

    David Pfau, James S Spencer, Alexander GDG Matthews, and W Matthew C Foulkes. Ab initio solution of the many-electron schrödinger equation with deep neural networks.Physical Review Research, 2(3):033429, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Physics- informedneuralnetworkwithtransferlearning(tl-pinn)basedondomainsimilaritymeasureforprediction of nuclear reactor transients.Scientific Reports, 13(1):16840, 2023

    Konstantinos Prantikos, Stylianos Chatzidakis, Lefteri H Tsoukalas, and Alexander Heifetz. Physics- informedneuralnetworkwithtransferlearning(tl-pinn)basedondomainsimilaritymeasureforprediction of nuclear reactor transients.Scientific Reports, 13(1):16840, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016

    Alfio Quarteroni, Andrea Manzoni, and Federico Negri.Reduced Basis Methods for Partial Differential Equations, volume 92 ofUNITEXT. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational physics, 378:686–707, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations.Science, 367(6481):1026–1030, 2020

    Maziar Raissi, Alireza Yazdani, and George Em Karniadakis. Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations.Science, 367(6481):1026–1030, 2020. 28

    2020

  49. [57]

    Convolutional Neural Operators for robust and accurate learning of PDEs

    Bogdan Raonic, Roberto Molinaro, Tim De Ryck, Tobias Rohner, Francesca Bartolucci, Rima Alaifari, Siddhartha Mishra, and Emmanuel de Bezenac. Convolutional Neural Operators for robust and accurate learning of PDEs. InThirty-Seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing S...

    2023

  50. [58]

    U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Nassir Navab, Joachim Hornegger, William M. Wells, and Alejandro F. Frangi, editors,Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015,...

    2015

  51. [59]

    Hyposvi: Hypocentre inversion with stein variational inference and physics informed neural networks.Geophysical Journal International, 228(1):698–710, 2022

    Jonthan D Smith, Zachary E Ross, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, and Jack B Muir. Hyposvi: Hypocentre inversion with stein variational inference and physics informed neural networks.Geophysical Journal International, 228(1):698–710, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Factorized Fourier Neural Operators

    Alasdair Tran, Alexander Mathews, Lexing Xie, and Cheng Soon Ong. Factorized Fourier Neural Operators. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43(5):A3055–A3081, 2021

    Sifan Wang, Yujun Teng, and Paris Perdikaris. Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43(5):A3055–A3081, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deeponets.Science advances, 7(40):eabi8605, 2021

    Sifan Wang, Hanwen Wang, and Paris Perdikaris. Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deeponets.Science advances, 7(40):eabi8605, 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    When and why pinns fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspective.Journal of Computational Physics, 449:110768, 2022

    Sifan Wang, Xinling Yu, and Paris Perdikaris. When and why pinns fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspective.Journal of Computational Physics, 449:110768, 2022

    2022

  56. [64]

    U-FNO—An enhanced Fourier neural operator-based deep-learning model for multiphase flow.Advances in Water Resources, 163:104180, 2022

    GegeWen,ZongyiLi,KamyarAzizzadenesheli,AnimaAnandkumar,andSallyM.Benson. U-FNO—An enhanced Fourier neural operator-based deep-learning model for multiphase flow.Advances in Water Resources, 163:104180, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Transolver: A fast transformer solver for PDEs on general geometries

    Haixu Wu, Huakun Luo, Haowen Wang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Transolver: A fast transformer solver for PDEs on general geometries. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 ofICML’24, pages 53681–53705, Vienna, Austria, 2024. JMLR.org

    2024

  58. [66]

    Transfer learning based physics-informed neural networks for solving inverse problems in engineering structures under different loading scenarios

    Chen Xu, Ba Trung Cao, Yong Yuan, and Günther Meschke. Transfer learning based physics-informed neural networks for solving inverse problems in engineering structures under different loading scenarios. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 405:115852, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Nonlocal kernel network (NKN): A stable and resolution-independent deep neural network.Journal of Computational Physics, page arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02217, 2022

    Huaiqian You, Yue Yu, Marta D’Elia, Tian Gao, and Stewart Silling. Nonlocal kernel network (NKN): A stable and resolution-independent deep neural network.Journal of Computational Physics, page arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02217, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Learning deep implicit fourier neural operators (ifnos) with applications to heterogeneous material modeling.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 398:115296, 2022

    Huaiqian You, Quinn Zhang, Colton J Ross, Chung-Hao Lee, and Yue Yu. Learning deep implicit fourier neural operators (ifnos) with applications to heterogeneous material modeling.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 398:115296, 2022. 29

    2022

  61. [69]

    Deep potential molecular dynamics: a scalable model with the accuracy of quantum mechanics.Physical Review Letters, 120(14):143001, 2018

    Linfeng Zhang, Jiequn Han, Han Wang, Roberto Car, and Weinan E. Deep potential molecular dynamics: a scalable model with the accuracy of quantum mechanics.Physical Review Letters, 120(14):143001, 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    MetaNO: How to transfer your knowledge on learning hidden physics.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 417:116280, 2023

    Lu Zhang, Huaiqian You, Tian Gao, Mo Yu, Chung-Hao Lee, and Yue Yu. MetaNO: How to transfer your knowledge on learning hidden physics.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 417:116280, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    Alias-free mamba neural operator

    Jianwei Zheng, Ni Xu, Junwei Zhu, Xiaoqin Zhang, et al. Alias-free mamba neural operator. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. A Experimental setup A.1 Poisson Setup ThefullPINNsaretrainedongridofsize128uniformlydiscretizedover Ω=[0,1...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.