A deformation-based framework for learning solution mappings of PDEs defined on varying domains

Pengzhan Jin; Shanshan Xiao; Yifa Tang

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

A deformation-based framework for learning solution mappings of PDEs defined on varying domains

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 PDE solution maps on varying domains can be represented as metric-to-Banach maps and approximated by neural networks with a proven convergence bound, provided the domains admit a continuous deformation and a vanishing-error discretization.

desk verdict A genuinely useful unifying framework and a practical D2E variant, but the 'rigorous convergence analysis' rests on a continuity proof (Theorem 5) that does not work as written, so the flagship claim is unproven until repaired. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01379 v2 pith:KGF5GOOH submitted 2024-12-02 math.NA cs.LGcs.NA

Shanshan Xiao , Pengzhan Jin , Yifa Tang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.LGcs.NA MSC 65N9968T0741A65

keywords operatorlearningPDEsonvaryingdomainsdeformation-basedframeworkmetric-to-BanachapproximationconvergenceanalysisneuraloperatorsstarPoissonequation

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

Learning solution operators of PDEs usually assumes a fixed domain. This paper removes that assumption by turning the collection of functions defined over a family of varying domains into a metric space: each domain $\Omega$ is pulled back to a standard reference domain $\Omega_0$ by a deformation map $D[\Omega]$, and the distance between two functions on different domains combines the domain distance with the $L^2$ distance of their pulled-back representatives. Within this metric, the PDE solution map $f_\Omega \mapsto u_\Omega$ becomes a continuous metric-to-metric map, which the authors represent as a continuous metric-to-Banach map and approximate by neural networks with an error bound (Theorem 1). For 2D Poisson on smooth star domains, the paper verifies all assumptions, so learning the operator by either of two subframeworks, D2D (learning the deformed solution $u_\Omega \circ D[\Omega]$) or D2E (learning a zero-extended solution on a large box), converges as the discretization and network size grow. The paper presents this as a rigorous convergence analysis for geometrically varying-domain operator learning that does not require diffeomorphic domains.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the deformation system $D:\mathcal{U}\to B(\Omega_0,\mathbb{R}^d)$, $\Omega\mapsto D[\Omega]$, a bijective (not necessarily continuous) map from a fixed standard domain $\Omega_0$ to each $\Omega$, together with the metric $d_X(f_{\Omega_1}, f_{\Omega_2}) = d_{\mathcal{U}}(\Omega_1,\Omega_2) + \|f_{\Omega_1}\circ D[\Omega_1] - f_{\Omega_2}\circ D[\Omega_2]\|_{L^2(\Omega_0)}$. This metric identifies the union $X$ with $\mathcal{U}\times B(\Omega_0)$ isometrically, so the solution map $H$ can be pulled back to a metric-to-Banach map $\hat{H}$ and approximated via Theorem 1. The second key mechanism is the discretization assumption (Assumption 3): encoders $\phi_n$ and reconstructors $\psi_n$ with projection error $\sup_{x\in K} d_X(x, \psi_n(\phi_n(x))) \to 0$; this replaces the Schauder-basis step in the MIONet approximation theorem and is what makes the error bound quantitative. For star domains, the deformation is the radial map $D[\Omega](x)=c_{\Omega}+b_{\Omega}(x/\|x\|)x$, and the discretization samples the boundary radius function and the pulled-back source term.

What would settle it

Take a sequence of smooth star domains $\Omega_n$ and source terms $f_{\Omega_n}$ converging to $(\Omega, f_{\Omega})$ in $d_X$, solve each Poisson problem with a high-accuracy finite-element method, and check whether $u_{\Omega_n}\circ D[\Omega_n] \to u_{\Omega}\circ D[\Omega]$ in $L^2(\Omega_0)$. Any convergent sequence whose solutions fail to converge in $L^2$ would disprove the continuity claim; alternatively, with a fixed wide network, increasing only the encoder resolution $n$ should drive the test error toward zero, so a persistent positive error floor would contradict the convergence guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a PDE solution mapping $H:K\subset X\to X$, where $X$ is the union of bounded Borel function spaces over a domain class $\mathcal{U}$, can be represented as a continuous metric-to-Banach mapping whenever $\mathcal{U}$ admits a continuous deformation system and $X$ admits a discretization with vanishing projection error on compact sets. Theorem 1 then gives an $\epsilon$-approximation by a neural network of the form $u\circ \tilde{G}\circ \phi_q$, where $\phi_q$ is the encoder, $\tilde{G}$ is a continuous map from $\mathbb{R}^{\kappa(q)}$ to $\mathbb{R}^p$, and $u$ is a continuous map from $\mathbb{R}^p$ into the target Banach space ($L^2(\Omega_0)$ for D2D, $L^2(V)$ for D2E). Theorems 2 and 3 convert this into two representation formulas for $H$: learn $u_{\Omega}\circ D[\Omega]$ and pull back, or learn the zero-extended $u_{\Omega}$ and restrict. For 2D Poisson on smooth star domains the paper verifies the metric, deformation, discretization, and continuity assumptions (Theorem 5), and supports the theory with experiments showing relative $L^2$ errors near 3% on polygonal and smooth domains, plus a linearity-preserving variant that accelerates Gauss-Seidel iteration by a factor of 8.4.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is continuity of the PDE solution map with respect to the deformation metric: if $f_{\Omega}\mapsto u_{\Omega}$ is not continuous when both the domain and the data are close in $d_X$, the approximation theorem has nothing to act on; the paper's proof of that continuity for 2D Poisson relies on a compactness-to-equicontinuity step that goes beyond what the stated $L^2$-based metric alone provides.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single model can cover all homeomorphic domains in a class, not only diffeomorphic ones, because only continuity of the deformation system is required.
The deformation map itself need not be continuous, so locally deformed domains can be handled by stitching an identity map on the main domain to a localized deformation.
D2D predictions can inherit singularities from the inverse deformation map, while D2E predicts solutions directly and avoids these regularity artifacts.
For linear PDEs, a linearity-preserving neural operator such as MIONet keeps the surrogate linear in the source term, so it can act as a preconditioner inside a hybrid iterative solver.
Once all assumptions are verified for a problem class, the test error is guaranteed to tend to zero as discretization resolution and network size grow.

Reading between the lines

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

The modular structure suggests an immediate test bed: verify the continuity step for other PDE families (for example, the Navier-Stokes pipe flow shown numerically) and the same convergence guarantee would follow without changing the metric or discretization machinery.
Because the metric $d_X$ is built from the $L^2$ norm on the reference domain, the guarantees are for $L^2$ convergence of solutions; pointwise or $H^1$ convergence would require a stronger metric or extra regularity assumptions, which the paper does not address.
Replacing the generic discretization in Assumption 3 by one with a known interpolating error rate would sharpen Theorem 1 from an existential error bound to an explicit convergence rate; the paper leaves this refinement open.
The D2E zero-extension on a bounding box suggests that the framework could transfer to geometry-agnostic encoders (point clouds or implicit neural representations) if those encoders satisfy the same vanishing projection error condition.

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,

Bottom line: the metric-space formulation is a real contribution and the D2E variant is worth having, but the headline claim of a "rigorous convergence analysis" isn't delivered. The proof of the load-bearing continuity theorem (Theorem 5) is invalid as written, and there's a smaller algebraic error in Lemma 2.

What's actually new: treating the union of function spaces over varying domains as a metric space via a deformation system, then representing the PDE solution map as a continuous metric-to-Banach map approximated by the tensor-product argument of Theorem 1. That subsumes Geo-FNO, DIMON, and their earlier [40] under one umbrella, and it's cleanly modular: metric, deformation, discretization, and continuity of H are separated. D2E — learning the extended solution on a fixed box and restricting — is a genuinely practical fix: the surrogate never composes with D[Ω]^{-1}, so it doesn't inherit the deformation's nondifferentiability. The numerics support that: D2D and Geo-FNO show kinks along lines from vertices to centroid, D2E doesn't; errors are comparable between D2D and D2E (~3.5%) and clearly better than Geo-FNO (6.5%). The linearity-preservation application to HIM with 8.4x speedup is a nice extra. Citation pattern is honest; the paper credits DIMON and [40] for the D2D-style idea, and self-citations are ancillary. Code is public.

Soft spots. The big one: Theorem 5. Continuity of H w.r.t. dX is what makes Theorems 1–3 yield convergence, and the proof doesn't go through. Step 1 claims K2 is uniformly equicontinuous by Arzelà–Ascoli because it's compact in L2(Ω0). L2 compactness implies no such thing; oscillatory spikes can live in an L2-compact set. Step 3 needs a uniform L∞ bound on sources, but dX compactness gives only L2 bounds of the deformed functions. So u_{Ωn} → u_Ω in L2(V) is not established. The theorem may be true — an H^1-stability route would likely fix it — but as written the "rigorous" convergence for the star-domain flagship example is unproven. That's load-bearing, and the abstract overstates what's shown.

Lemma 2's proof has a false algebraic identity (Eq. 100); the lemma statement is true and easy to repair. Minor by itself, but combined with Theorem 5 it says the proofs need careful checking.

The repeated claim that D2E is "comprehensively better" is stronger than the evidence: same accuracy, better regularity. Say "avoids a regularity issue at modest cost" and stop there.

The reader's worry about an approximation property for Y in Theorem 1 is a non-issue; the injective tensor product argument works for any Banach Y. Don't send them chasing that.

Who it's for: people working on geometry-aware neural operators and surrogates for PDEs on varying domains. The framework deserves to be read and cited; it's a genuine step, and a serious referee should engage. Recommendation: send to review with major revision — repair Theorem 5 or explicitly demote it to an assumption, fix Lemma 2, soften the D2E claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a deformation-based framework for learning solution mappings of PDEs defined on varying domains. It equips the union of function spaces on a family of domains with a metric via a reference domain and deformation maps, proves a general approximation theorem for continuous metric-to-Banach mappings, and introduces two subframeworks, D2D and D2E. For 2D Poisson on smooth star domains, the paper claims to verify all standing assumptions and thereby provide a rigorous convergence analysis. Numerical experiments on polygonal domains, smooth star domains, locally deformed domains, and a pipe flow illustrate the method.

Significance. The framework is a useful conceptual contribution: it replaces the Banach-space assumption of classical operator learning with a metric-space setting and cleanly separates the D2D and D2E design choices. The main approximation theorem (Theorem 1) is self-contained, and the star-domain discretization in Section 4.1 is thoughtfully constructed. The numerical results and the public code are also strengths. However, the paper's headline claim of a rigorous convergence analysis depends critically on Theorem 5, whose proof is not valid as written; the same is true for part of the proof of Lemma 2. The underlying ideas are defensible and likely repairable, but the manuscript currently overstates its theoretical guarantees.

major comments (4)

[Appendix F, Step 1, Eq. (104)] The assertion that K2 = π2(σ(K)) is uniformly equicontinuous 'by Arzelà–Ascoli' because it is compact in L2(Ω0) is false: L2-compactness does not imply equicontinuity, since a sequence of narrow spikes with growing height and decreasing support can be L2-compact while having no equicontinuous subsequence. Consequently, the displayed limit ∥fΩn − fΩn∘D[Ωn]∘D[Ω]−1∥_{L2(J)} → 0 does not follow from the stated dX-convergence assumptions. This is load-bearing because Theorem 5 is the only place where continuity of H is verified for the Poisson star-domain example, and that continuity is the hypothesis underlying Theorems 1–3 and the claimed convergence guarantee.
[Appendix F, Step 3, around Eq. (111)] The dominant bound |uΩn(x)| ≤ C1 + C2|ln dist(x, ∂Ωn)| uses a single constant Mf bounding |fΩn| for all n. Compactness of K in dX gives only L2 convergence of fΩn∘D[Ωn] on Ω0, not a uniform L∞ bound on the original functions. Without such a bound, the functions gn need not converge in L2(V), and the Vitali argument in Step 3 collapses. The theorem may be true, but the present proof needs a different route, for example uniform H1 estimates followed by Sobolev embedding.
[Appendix E, Eq. (100)] The displayed chain '∥f−Pn(f)∥² = Σ∫(f−avg f)² ≤ Σ∫(f−avg f)² + (avg g−avg f)² = ∥f−Pn(g)∥²' is algebraically incorrect: the final equality omits the factor m(Ωn_i) multiplying (avg_i g − avg_i f)². The intended statement, that the piecewise-constant projection is the closest point in the L2 norm, is true, but this proof is wrong as written. Since Lemma 2 feeds into Theorem 4 and hence into Assumption 3, the proof must be corrected.
[Section 4.1 and Algorithm 4.1] The discretization actually implemented in Algorithm 4.1 uses point evaluations ϕ2_q2(fΩi∘D[Ωi]) = (f(x1),...,f(x_q2)), whereas Lemma 2 is proved for the piecewise-constant averaging encoder. The text after Eq. (52) asserts without proof that for piecewise continuous functions point evaluation 'can simply be applied.' This does not follow from the L2-compactness used in Assumption 3: a sequence of narrow spikes of growing height is L2-compact, yet its point values at fixed locations can diverge. The convergence guarantee supplied by Theorems 1–4 therefore does not cover the encoder used in the numerical method; either the point-evaluation discretization must be proved to satisfy Assumption 3 under explicit extra conditions, or the algorithm should be reformulated with the averaged encoder.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract says the framework has 'three important features', while Section 1 and Section 6 list four; the D2D-versus-D2E comparison item is missing from the abstract.
[Theorem 5, Section 4.1] The statement that K is 'a compact set in F_{Ω∈U} C(Ω)' should specify the topology: since C(Ω) is not given its own metric, compactness should be understood with respect to the metric dX from Definition 1 restricted to the union, and this should be stated explicitly.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (51) and Algorithm 4.1] The averaging discretization in Eq. (51) and the point-evaluation discretization in Eq. (52) are both presented as valid choices, but the paper gives no regularity condition under which the point-evaluation version is guaranteed to satisfy Assumption 3; this connection between theory and implementation should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central convergence argument is self-contained; self-citations are ancillary and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is Theorem 1 (metric-to-Banach approximation from Assumption 3 and the tensor-product theorem), Theorem 2/3 (representation of a continuous H as a metric-to-Banach map), and the star-domain verification (Lemmas 1–2, Theorem 4, Theorem 5). None of these steps fits a parameter to the target output or defines the target in terms of the approximator. The metric d_X and deformation system D in Definition 1 are freely chosen mathematical structures, not inferred from u_Ω, and the approximation theorem is proven rather than assumed. The star-domain proof relies on external Green's-function results ([16], [18]) and standard compactness, not on a self-citation chain. The only self-references are [40] (the authors' earlier version, cited as prior work) and [14] (a co-author's hybrid iterative method); both are ancillary to the convergence guarantee, and removing them does not affect the main theorem. The continuity proof of Theorem 5 contains a technical gap—L2-compactness alone does not imply the equicontinuity used around Eq. (104), and the L∞ bound in Eq. (111) is not justified by d_X-compactness—but this is a correctness risk to be repaired by stronger assumptions, not a circular reduction: the continuity of H is a genuine hypothesis verified for the example, not a restatement of the metric choice. The abstract's caveat that the framework rests on pivotal assumptions to be verified per problem is an honest scope statement, not a concealed input.

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

The framework introduces no fitted constants or invented physical entities; its load-bearing assumptions are the deformation system, the discretization property, continuity of the solution mapping, and two standard mathematical facts that are used without full hypothesis checks.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Assumption 2: each domain Ω admits a bijective bounded Borel deformation D[Ω] from a fixed standard domain Ω0, and the deformation system D is continuous as a map from U to L2(Ω0,Rd).
Defines the metric on X; verified for star domains, annular domains, and locally deformed domains, but must be checked for each new domain family.
domain assumption Assumption 3: the metric space X admits an encoder-decoder discretization with vanishing projection error on every compact set.
This is the replacement for Schauder bases in MIONet's approximation theorem; proved for star domains in Theorem 4 and assumed for other families.
domain assumption The PDE solution mapping H is continuous from (K, d_X) to (X, d_X).
Stated as step 2 of the framework summary; proved for 2D Poisson on smooth star domains in Theorem 5, but the proof has the equicontinuity gap; not proved for polygonal or locally deformed experiments.
standard math The target space Y has the approximation property so that C(K,Y) equals the injective tensor product C(K) ⊗_ε Y.
Used in the proof of Theorem 1 (Appendix A); holds for the Hilbert spaces L2 used in this paper, but is not stated as a hypothesis.
standard math Uniform convergence of Green's functions from Kalmykov-Kovalev (ref [16]) applies to the varying smooth star domains.
The main external tool in Theorem 5; the paper does not verify its hypotheses beyond assuming smooth boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A deformation-based framework for learning solution mappings of PDEs defined on varying domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KGF5GOOH

@misc{pith2026241201379,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A deformation-based framework for learning solution mappings of PDEs defined on varying domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KGF5GOOH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01379}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we establish a deformation-based framework for learning solution mappings of PDEs defined on varying domains. The union of functions defined on varying domains can be identified as a metric space according to the deformation, then the solution mapping is regarded as a continuous metric-to-metric mapping, and subsequently can be represented by another continuous metric-to-Banach mapping using two different strategies, referred to as the D2D subframework and the D2E subframework, respectively. We point out that such a metric-to-Banach mapping can be learned by neural networks, hence the solution mapping is accordingly learned. With this framework, a rigorous convergence analysis is built for the problem of learning solution mappings of PDEs on varying domains. As the theoretical framework holds based on several pivotal assumptions which need to be verified for a given specific problem, we study the star domains as a typical example, and other situations could be similarly verified. There are three important features of this framework: (1) The domains under consideration are not required to be diffeomorphic, therefore a wide range of regions can be covered by one model provided they are homeomorphic. (2) The deformation mapping is unnecessary to be continuous, thus it can be flexibly established via combining a primary identity mapping and a local deformation mapping. This capability facilitates the resolution of large systems where only local parts of the geometry undergo change. (3) If a linearity-preserving neural operator such as MIONet is adopted, this framework still preserves the linearity of the surrogate solution mapping on its source term for linear PDEs, thus it can be applied to the hybrid iterative method. We finally present several numerical experiments to validate our theoretical results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01379 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An illustration of the deformation-based framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The predictions of D2E-MIONet, D2D-MIONet, and Geo-FNO for Poisson equations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: An example of prediction on the smooth star domain with fully-parameterized solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: An example of prediction in the three-dimensional space. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Two examples of predictions on locally deformed domains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (Left) The prediction on the pipe for N-S equation. (Right) The prediction on the annular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

A Geometry-Aware Operator Learning Framework for Interface Problems on Varying Domains
math.NA 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An extension-based FNO with TFPM basis learns linear interface PDE maps on varying domains, with Helmholtz continuity proofs and characteristic/SDF encoding error estimates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[40]

S. Xiao, P. Jin, and Y. Tang. Learning solution operators of pdes defined on varying domains via mionet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15097 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[1]

S. Cai, Z. Mao, Z. Wang, M. Yin, and G. E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 37(12):1727–1738, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

J. Deng, X. Li, H. Xiong, X. Hu, and J. Ma. Geometry-guided conditional adaption for surrogate models of large-scale 3d PDEs on arbitrary geometries, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Dugundji

J. Dugundji. An extension of Tietze’s theorem. Pacific Journal of Mathematics , 1(3):353–367, 1951

work page 1951
[4]

W. E, C. Ma, and L. Wu. Barron spaces and the compositional function spaces for neural network models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08039 , 2019

arXiv 1906
[5]

W. E and B. Yu. The deep Ritz method: a deep learning-based numerical algorithm for solving variational problems. Communications in Mathematics and Statistics , 6(1):1–12, 2018

2018
[6]

Gonz´ alez

´A. Gonz´ alez. Measurement of areas on a sphere using fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices. Mathematical geosciences, 42:49–64, 2010

work page 2010
[7]

Goswami, K

S. Goswami, K. Kontolati, M. D. Shields, and G. E. Karniadakis. Deep transfer operator learning for partial differential equations under conditional shift. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(12):1155–1164, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 43 references

[8]

Gupta, X

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

2021
[9]

B. Hanin. Universal function approximation by deep neural nets with bounded width and relu activations. Mathematics, 7(10):992, 2019

2019
[10]

J. He, S. Koric, D. Abueidda, A. Najafi, and I. Jasiuk. Geom-deeponet: A point-cloud-based deep operator network for field predictions on 3d parameterized geometries.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 429:117130, 2024

2024
[11]

J. He, X. Liu, and J. Xu. MgNO: Efficient Parameterization of Linear Operators via Multigrid. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19809 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

Hornik, M

K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural networks, 2(5):359–366, 1989

1989
[13]

Hornik, M

K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White. Universal approximation of an unknown mapping and its derivatives using multilayer feedforward networks.Neural networks, 3(5):551–560, 1990

1990
[14]

Hu and P

J. Hu and P. Jin. A hybrid iterative method based on MIONet for PDEs: Theory and numerical examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07156 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

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

2022
[16]

Kalmykov and L

S. Kalmykov and L. V. Kovalev. Uniform convergence of green’s functions. Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations , 64(4):557–562, 2019

2019
[17]

G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang. Physics- informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics , 3(6):422–440, 2021. 27

2021
[18]

P. D. Lax. On the existence of green’s function. In Selected Papers Volume I , pages 2–7. Springer, 2005

2005
[19]

Z. Li, D. Z. Huang, B. Liu, and A. Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator with learned defor- mations for pdes on general geometries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05209 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[20]

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

2010 arXiv
[21]

Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anandku- mar. Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03485, 2020

2003 arXiv
[22]

L. Lu, P. Jin, and G. E. Karniadakis. DeepONet: Learning nonlinear operators for identify- ing differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03193, 2019

1910 arXiv
[23]

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

2021
[24]

L. Lu, R. Pestourie, W. Yao, Z. Wang, F. Verdugo, and S. G. Johnson. Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse design. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 43(6):B1105–B1132, 2021

2021
[25]

G. Pang, L. Lu, and G. E. Karniadakis. fPINNs: Fractional physics-informed neural networks. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 41(4):A2603–A2626, 2019

2019
[26]

J. J. Park, P. Florence, J. Straub, R. Newcombe, and S. Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning con- tinuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 165–174, 2019

2019
[27]

C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660, 2017

2017
[28]

C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

2017
[29]

M. A. Rahman, Z. E. Ross, and K. Azizzadenesheli. U-no: U-shaped neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11127, 2022

2022 arXiv
[30]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial dif- ferential equations. Journal of Computational physics , 378:686–707, 2019

2019
[31]

Raonic, R

B. Raonic, R. Molinaro, T. Rohner, S. Mishra, and E. de Bezenac. Convolutional neural operators. In ICLR 2023 Workshop on Physics for Machine Learning , 2023

2023
[32]

R. A. Ryan. Introduction to tensor products of Banach spaces , volume 73. Springer, 2002. 28

2002
[33]

Serrano, L

L. Serrano, L. Le Boudec, A. Kassa ¨ ı Koupa ¨ ı, T. X. Wang, Y. Yin, J.-N. Vittaut, and P. Galli- nari. Operator learning with neural fields: Tackling pdes on general geometries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:70581–70611, 2023

2023
[34]

J. W. Siegel and J. Xu. High-order approximation rates for shallow neural networks with cosine and ReLUk activation functions. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , 58:1– 26, 2022

2022
[35]

Sirignano and K

J. Sirignano and K. Spiliopoulos. DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differ- ential equations. Journal of computational physics , 375:1339–1364, 2018

2018
[36]

Sitzmann, J

V. Sitzmann, J. Martel, A. Bergman, D. Lindell, and G. Wetzstein. Implicit neural represen- tations with periodic activation functions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:7462–7473, 2020

2020
[37]

Swinbank and R

R. Swinbank and R. James Purser. Fibonacci grids: A novel approach to global modelling. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography, 132(619):1769–1793, 2006

2006
[38]

S. Wang, H. Wang, and P. Perdikaris. Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed DeepONets. Science advances , 7(40):eabi8605, 2021

2021
[39]

H. Wu, T. Hu, H. Luo, J. Wang, and M. Long. Solving High-Dimensional PDEs with Latent Spectral Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12664 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[41]

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

2024 arXiv
[42]

C. Zeng, Y. Zhang, J. Zhou, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, L. Wu, and D. Z. Huang. Point cloud neural operator for parametric pdes on complex and variable geometries. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 443:118022, 2025

2025
[43]

Zheng, X

Q. Zheng, X. Yin, and D. Zhang. State-space modeling for electrochemical performance of Li-ion batteries with physics-informed deep operator networks. Journal of Energy Storage , 73:109244, 2023. 29

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [40]

S. Xiao, P. Jin, and Y. Tang. Learning solution operators of pdes defined on varying domains via mionet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15097 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

S. Cai, Z. Mao, Z. Wang, M. Yin, and G. E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 37(12):1727–1738, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [2]

J. Deng, X. Li, H. Xiong, X. Hu, and J. Ma. Geometry-guided conditional adaption for surrogate models of large-scale 3d PDEs on arbitrary geometries, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [3]

Dugundji

J. Dugundji. An extension of Tietze’s theorem. Pacific Journal of Mathematics , 1(3):353–367, 1951

work page 1951

[5] [4]

W. E, C. Ma, and L. Wu. Barron spaces and the compositional function spaces for neural network models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08039 , 2019

arXiv 1906

[6] [5]

W. E and B. Yu. The deep Ritz method: a deep learning-based numerical algorithm for solving variational problems. Communications in Mathematics and Statistics , 6(1):1–12, 2018

2018

[7] [6]

Gonz´ alez

´A. Gonz´ alez. Measurement of areas on a sphere using fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices. Mathematical geosciences, 42:49–64, 2010

work page 2010

[8] [7]

Goswami, K

S. Goswami, K. Kontolati, M. D. Shields, and G. E. Karniadakis. Deep transfer operator learning for partial differential equations under conditional shift. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(12):1155–1164, 2022

work page 2022