← Back to all news
arXiv Machine Learning By Jiuyun Sun, Yong Zhang

Physics-Informed Error Field Learning: A Post-Training Optimization Framework for Physics-Informed Neural Networks

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

Physics-Informed Error Field Learning (PIEFL) is a post‑training optimization framework for Physics‑Informed Neural Networks (PINNs). After a primary network reaches satisfactory accuracy, PIEFL introduces an auxiliary error network that learns the discrepancy between the current approximation and the exact solution by deriving error control equations under physical constraints. The learned error correction is then combined with the primary prediction, improving solution accuracy without modifying the primary network architecture and focusing computational resources on correcting existing prediction errors.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

Related stories

arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 19

Evolutionary Two-Stage Hyperparameter Optimization Strategies for Physics-Informed Neural Networks

arXiv:2606. 20442v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) solve Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) by embedding physical laws into neural network training.

By Fedor Buzaev (HSE University), Dmitry Efremenko (HSE University), Egor Bugaev (HSE University), Andrei Ermakov (HSE University, AXXX), Denis Derkach (HSE University), Daria Pugacheva (HSE University, AXXX), Fedor Ratnikov (HSE University)
rag
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31

Examining the robustness of Physics-Informed Neural Networks to noise for Inverse Problems

The paper evaluates the robustness of Physics‑Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) against noisy data in inverse problems, comparing them to a finite element method (FEM) plus optimizer baseline. Experiments on viscosity identification in 1D Burgers’ equation and 2D/3D Taylor‑Green Vortex with additive Gaussian noise show that PINNs, while requiring less human expertise, are outperformed by the traditional FEM approach in accuracy (e.g., RMSE 0.01 vs. 0.0013 for 2D Taylor‑Green with σ=1). PINNs do, however, exhibit better scaling with problem complexity, and the study highlights specific training failures that must be addressed for PINNs to become more competitive.

By Aleksandra Jekic, Afroditi Natsaridou, Signe Riemer-S{\o}rensen, Helge Langseth, Odd Erik Gundersen
More like this →