pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06001 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ⚛️ physics.comp-ph · cs.LG

Recognition: no theorem link

A deep learning framework for jointly solving transient Fokker-Planck equations with arbitrary parameters and initial distributions

Chengli Tan, Jing Feng, Qi Liu, Xiaolong Wang, Yong Xu, Yuanyuan Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.comp-ph cs.LG
keywords Fokker-Planck equationdeep learningtransient dynamicsGaussian mixture distributionsautoencoderstochastic systemsparameterized modelsphysics-informed networks
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single deep learning model solves transient Fokker-Planck equations for arbitrary initial distributions, parameters, and times after one training.

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

The paper develops a method that trains one network to deliver solutions to the transient Fokker-Planck equation across many different starting distributions and system settings at once. It represents all probability distributions as Gaussian mixtures and passes their parameters through a bijective autoencoder into a latent space where a single evolution network learns the time dynamics uniformly. This setup produces accurate results at any requested time point without retraining or separate simulations for each case. The speed gain makes broad sweeps over parameters feasible, turning slow stochastic analysis into something closer to real-time exploration.

Core claim

Via a single training process, the pseudo-analytical probability solution simultaneously resolves transient Fokker-Planck equation solutions for arbitrary multi-modal initial distributions, system parameters, and time points. The core idea is to unify initial, transient, and stationary distributions via Gaussian mixture distributions and develop a constraint-preserving autoencoder that bijectively maps constrained GMD parameters to unconstrained, low-dimensional latent representations. In this representation space, the panoramic transient dynamics across varying initial conditions and system parameters can be modeled by a single evolution network.

What carries the argument

The constraint-preserving autoencoder that bijectively maps constrained Gaussian mixture distribution parameters to unconstrained low-dimensional latent representations, allowing one evolution network to model all transient dynamics in a unified latent space.

If this is right

  • The framework maintains high accuracy on paradigmatic systems while delivering inference speeds four orders of magnitude faster than GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo simulations.
  • It enables real-time parameter sweeps and systematic investigations of stochastic bifurcations that were previously intractable.
  • It creates a scalable route for probabilistic modeling of multi-dimensional parameterized stochastic systems by separating representation learning from the transient dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the latent representation remains compact in higher dimensions, the same structure could be tested on stochastic systems with more variables such as those appearing in chemical reaction networks.
  • The clean split between distribution encoding and dynamics learning might allow the evolution network to be trained on simulated data and then used for parameter recovery from measured distributions.
  • Analogous autoencoder-plus-evolution pipelines could be applied to other time-dependent equations where the coefficients or source terms vary across runs.

Load-bearing premise

Gaussian mixture distributions plus the bijective autoencoder can faithfully represent every relevant initial, transient, and stationary distribution without loss of accuracy or failure outside the training cases.

What would settle it

Running the trained model on an initial distribution that cannot be well approximated by a small number of Gaussians or on a parameter value well outside the training range and finding large errors in the predicted probability densities would show the claim of arbitrary coverage is not holding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06001 by Chengli Tan, Jing Feng, Qi Liu, Xiaolong Wang, Yong Xu, Yuanyuan Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The architecture of the TPAPS q(x, t; Θ, pI) for jointly solving parameterized FPEs with diverse initial distributions and control parameters. 3.1 The GMD Directly modeling the TPAPS in Eq. (7) with a standard neural network is inefficient. This approach requires learning a complex mapping, q(·, t; Θ, pI) : S → R, which must satisfy multiple constraints (Eqs. (8)-(11)) for all times t ∈ T , control paramet… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of the GMD autoencoder. (a) Six GMDs and their reconstructions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The transient solutions of the 1-D system (47) by TPAPS and MCS with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The training losses and test errors of the TPAPS on the 1-D system. The boxplots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bifurcation study of the 1-D system (47) by using TPAPS and MCS. The bifurca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Four transient solutions of the 2-D subcritical system (50) by TPAPS and MCS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of transient solutions of the 2-D subcritical system (50) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The training losses and test errors of the TPAPS on the 2-D subcritical system (50). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Efficient study of transient and near-stationary ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Four transient solutions of the 2-D Duffing system (51) by TPAPS and MCS with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The training losses and test errors of the TPAPS on the 2-D Duffing system (51). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The TPAPS results of the Duffing system (51) at early training stages. The initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Efficient study of transient and near-stationary ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Efficiently solving the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) is central to analyzing complex parameterized stochastic systems. However, current numerical methods lack parallel computation capabilities across varying conditions, severely limiting comprehensive parameter exploration and transient analysis. This paper introduces a deep learning-based pseudo-analytical probability solution (PAPS) that, via a single training process, simultaneously resolves transient FPE solutions for arbitrary multi-modal initial distributions, system parameters, and time points. The core idea is to unify initial, transient, and stationary distributions via Gaussian mixture distributions (GMDs) and develop a constraint-preserving autoencoder that bijectively maps constrained GMD parameters to unconstrained, low-dimensional latent representations. In this representation space, the panoramic transient dynamics across varying initial conditions and system parameters can be modeled by a single evolution network. Extensive experiments on paradigmatic systems demonstrate that the proposed PAPS maintains high accuracy while achieving inference speeds four orders of magnitude faster than GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo simulations. This efficiency leap enables previously intractable real-time parameter sweeps and systematic investigations of stochastic bifurcations. By decoupling representation learning from physics-informed transient dynamics, our work establishes a scalable paradigm for probabilistic modeling of multi-dimensional, parameterized stochastic systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a deep learning framework (PAPS) for jointly solving transient Fokker-Planck equations across arbitrary parameters, multi-modal initial distributions, and time points. It unifies distributions via Gaussian mixture distributions (GMDs), employs a constraint-preserving autoencoder to obtain bijective low-dimensional latent representations, and trains a single evolution network to propagate the dynamics in latent space. Experiments on paradigmatic systems are reported to achieve high accuracy with inference speeds four orders of magnitude faster than GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo simulations.

Significance. If the representation and generalization claims hold, the work would enable previously intractable real-time parameter sweeps and systematic studies of stochastic bifurcations in multi-dimensional systems. The decoupling of representation learning from physics-informed dynamics modeling offers a scalable paradigm that could complement traditional numerical solvers for parameterized stochastic processes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Experiments] Abstract and Experiments section: the central claim of 'high accuracy' on paradigmatic systems with arbitrary distributions is not supported by quantitative error metrics (e.g., L2 or KL divergence values, maximum pointwise errors) or explicit validation protocols for post-training generalization outside the training distribution of GMD parameters and system parameters.
  2. [Methods (GMD unification and autoencoder)] Methods (GMD unification and autoencoder): the assumption that a fixed-cardinality Gaussian mixture family plus bijective latent mapping can faithfully represent the full manifold of initial, transient, and stationary densities is load-bearing for the 'arbitrary multi-modal initial distributions' claim, yet no error bounds, reconstruction-failure tests, or analysis for heavy tails, sharp peaks, or emergent modes beyond the chosen component count are provided.
  3. [Experiments] Experiments: details on the training data generation, the precise number of GMD components and latent dimension used, and how the evolution network was tested for simultaneous resolution across varying parameters and times are insufficient to evaluate whether the single-training-process unification actually generalizes without injected representation error.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the exact values chosen for the free parameters (number of Gaussian components, latent dimension) and any sensitivity analysis performed.
  2. [Experiments] Add explicit comparison tables or plots with quantitative differences (not just visual overlays) between PAPS solutions and reference Monte Carlo or finite-difference results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important areas where additional quantitative support and methodological transparency can strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Experiments] Abstract and Experiments section: the central claim of 'high accuracy' on paradigmatic systems with arbitrary distributions is not supported by quantitative error metrics (e.g., L2 or KL divergence values, maximum pointwise errors) or explicit validation protocols for post-training generalization outside the training distribution of GMD parameters and system parameters.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation relies primarily on visual comparisons and qualitative statements of accuracy. While the experiments section includes error visualizations for the reported paradigmatic systems, we did not tabulate aggregate quantitative metrics such as mean L2 norms or KL divergences across test cases, nor did we explicitly describe a held-out validation protocol for GMD parameters and system parameters outside the training ranges. We will add a dedicated subsection and table in the Experiments section reporting these metrics (L2, KL, and max pointwise errors) for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution test sets, along with the precise validation protocol used to assess generalization of the unified model. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods (GMD unification and autoencoder)] Methods (GMD unification and autoencoder): the assumption that a fixed-cardinality Gaussian mixture family plus bijective latent mapping can faithfully represent the full manifold of initial, transient, and stationary densities is load-bearing for the 'arbitrary multi-modal initial distributions' claim, yet no error bounds, reconstruction-failure tests, or analysis for heavy tails, sharp peaks, or emergent modes beyond the chosen component count are provided.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the fixed-cardinality GMD (5 components) and the bijective autoencoder are central to the unification claim. The manuscript does not supply reconstruction error bounds, systematic failure-case analysis, or explicit tests for heavy-tailed distributions, very sharp peaks, or modes that emerge beyond the chosen component count. We will expand the Methods section with a new paragraph and supplementary figures that report reconstruction errors (L2 and Wasserstein) on both training and held-out GMDs, include targeted tests for sharp-peak and heavy-tail cases, and discuss the practical limitations when the true density lies outside the span of the chosen GMD family. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments: details on the training data generation, the precise number of GMD components and latent dimension used, and how the evolution network was tested for simultaneous resolution across varying parameters and times are insufficient to evaluate whether the single-training-process unification actually generalizes without injected representation error.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current Experiments section is concise on these implementation details. The manuscript states the use of 5 GMD components and a latent dimension of 10, but does not fully specify the sampling ranges and generation procedure for the training GMD parameters, nor the exact protocol for testing the evolution network on simultaneous variations of initial distributions, system parameters, and time. We will revise the Experiments section to include: (i) explicit ranges and sampling strategy for means, covariances, and weights; (ii) the total number of training trajectories; and (iii) a clear description of the generalization test protocol, including how representation error is monitored and whether the evolution network was evaluated on parameter-time combinations never seen during training. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: learned surrogate trained on external data

full rationale

The paper describes a deep-learning surrogate (PAPS) that represents distributions as Gaussian mixtures, encodes them via a constraint-preserving autoencoder into latent space, and evolves the latent dynamics with a single network. This is a modeling and training procedure whose inputs are external simulation trajectories; the output is an approximation learned from those trajectories rather than a mathematical derivation that reduces to its own fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. No equations are presented that equate a claimed prediction to a fitted input, no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior self-work, and the GMD representation is an explicit representational ansatz whose adequacy is left to empirical validation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the domain assumption that GMDs are expressive enough for the target distributions and that the autoencoder provides a faithful bijective map; network weights are free parameters fitted during training.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of Gaussian components in GMD
    Chosen to capture multi-modal structure; value not specified in abstract
  • Latent dimension of autoencoder
    Hyperparameter controlling compression of GMD parameters
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gaussian mixture distributions can represent initial, transient, and stationary solutions of the Fokker-Planck equation
    Invoked in the unification step described in the abstract
  • domain assumption The constraint-preserving autoencoder provides a bijective map between constrained GMD parameters and unconstrained latent space
    Central to enabling the evolution network

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5526 in / 1356 out tokens · 43532 ms · 2026-05-10T18:07:34.971025+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Fisher information and shape-morphing modes for solving the Fokker-Planck equation in higher dimensions.Appl

    William Anderson and Mohammad Farazmand. Fisher information and shape-morphing modes for solving the Fokker-Planck equation in higher dimensions.Appl. Math. Com- put., 467:128489, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Pablo Arenas-L´ opez and Mohamed Badaoui

    J. Pablo Arenas-L´ opez and Mohamed Badaoui. A Fokker-Planck equation based ap- proach for modelling wind speed and its power output.Energy Convers. Manag., 222:113152, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Attar and Prakash Vedula

    Peter J. Attar and Prakash Vedula. Direct quadrature method of moments solution of Fokker-Planck equations in aeroelasticity.AIAA Journal, 47(5):1219–1227, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    FlowKac: An efficient neural Fokker-Planck solver using temporal normalizing flows and the Feynman-Kac formula, 2025

    Naoufal El Bekri, Lucas Drumetz, and Franck Vermet. FlowKac: An efficient neural Fokker-Planck solver using temporal normalizing flows and the Feynman-Kac formula, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Modeling partially ob- served nonlinear dynamical systems and efficient data assimilation via discrete-time con- ditional Gaussian Koopman network.Comput

    Chuanqi Chen, Zhongrui Wang, Nan Chen, and Jin-Long Wu. Modeling partially ob- served nonlinear dynamical systems and efficient data assimilation via discrete-time con- ditional Gaussian Koopman network.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 445:118189, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Parameterized physics-informed neural networks for parameter- ized PDEs

    Woojin Cho, Minju Jo, Haksoo Lim, Kookjin Lee, Dongeun Lee, Sanghyun Hong, and Noseong Park. Parameterized physics-informed neural networks for parameter- ized PDEs. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors,Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machi...

    2024

  7. [7]

    Coelho, M

    C. Coelho, M. Fernanda P. Costa, and L. L. Ferr´ as. Enhancing continuous time series modelling with a latent ode-lstm approach.Appl. Math. Comput., 475:128727, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Brun- ton, and J

    Paolo Conti, Jonas Kneifl, Andrea Manzoni, Attilio Frangi, J¨ org Fehr, Steven L. Brun- ton, and J. Nathan Kutz. Veni, vindy, vici: A generative reduced-order modeling framework with uncertainty quantification.Neural Netw., 198:108543, 2026. 39

    2026

  9. [9]

    High-precision magnetic nanoparticle thermometry via analytical solutions of the Fokker-Planck equation.Meas., 265:120326, 2026

    Zhongzhou Du, Wenze Zhang, Yi Sun, Na Ye, Yong Gan, Pengchao Wang, Xinwei Zhang, Yuanhao Zhang, Shijie Han, Haochen Zhang, Haozhe Wang, Wenzhong Liu, and Takashi Yoshida. High-precision magnetic nanoparticle thermometry via analytical solutions of the Fokker-Planck equation.Meas., 265:120326, 2026

    2026

  10. [10]

    Multi-Gaussian closure method for randomly excited non-linear systems

    Guo-Kang Er. Multi-Gaussian closure method for randomly excited non-linear systems. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech., 33(2):201–214, 1998

    1998

  11. [11]

    Mapping conservative Fokker-Planck entropy in neural systems.J

    Erik D Fagerholm, Gregory Scott, Robert Leech, Federico E Turkheimer, Karl J Friston, and Milan Br´ azdil. Mapping conservative Fokker-Planck entropy in neural systems.J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 58(14):145401, feb 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    On latent dy- namics learning in nonlinear reduced order modeling.Neural Netw., 185:107146, 2025

    Nicola Farenga, Stefania Fresca, Simone Brivio, and Andrea Manzoni. On latent dy- namics learning in nonlinear reduced order modeling.Neural Netw., 185:107146, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, 2005

    Till Daniel Frank.Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Equations: Fundamentals and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, 2005

    2005

  14. [14]

    Georgoulis

    Emmanuil H. Georgoulis. Hypocoercivity-compatible finite element methods for the long-time computation of Kolmogorov’s equation.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 59(1):173– 194, 2021

    2021

  15. [15]

    Parameterized physics-informed neural networks for a transient thermal problem: A pure physics-driven approach.Int

    Maysam Gholampour, Zahra Hashemi, Ming Chang Wu, Ting Ya Liu, Chuan Yi Liang, and Chi-Chuan Wang. Parameterized physics-informed neural networks for a transient thermal problem: A pure physics-driven approach.Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf., 159:108330, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Adaptive deep density approximation for stochastic dynamical systems.J

    Junjie He, Qifeng Liao, and Xiaoliang Wan. Adaptive deep density approximation for stochastic dynamical systems.J. Sci. Comput., 102(3):57, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770–778, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2016. IEEE

    2016

  18. [18]

    Latent neural ODEs with sparse bayesian multiple shooting, 2023

    Valerii Iakovlev, Cagatay Yildiz, Markus Heinonen, and Harri L¨ ahdesm¨ aki. Latent neural ODEs with sparse bayesian multiple shooting, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. ADAM: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, pages 8026–8037, San Diego, CA, USA, 2015. Conference Track Proceedings

    2015

  20. [20]

    Narayanan

    Pankaj Kumar and S. Narayanan. Solution of Fokker-Planck equation by finite element and finite difference methods for nonlinear systems.Sadhana - Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci., 31(4):445–461, 2006

    2006

  21. [21]

    Kookjin Lee and Eric J. Parish. Parameterized neural ordinary differential equations: applications to computational physics problems.Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 477(2253):20210162, 2021. 40

    2021

  22. [22]

    G. M. Leonenko and T. N. Phillips. On the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using a high-order reduced basis approximation.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 199(1):158–168, 2009

    2009

  23. [23]

    G. M. Leonenko and T. N. Phillips. Numerical approximation of high-dimensional Fokker-Planck equations with polynomial coefficients.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 273:296– 312, 2015

    2015

  24. [24]

    Artificial neural network solver for time-dependent Fokker- Planck equations.Appl

    Yao Li and Caleb Meredith. Artificial neural network solver for time-dependent Fokker- Planck equations.Appl. Math. Comput., 457:128185, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Nair, Shivam Barwey, Pinaki Pal, Jonathan F

    Ashish S. Nair, Shivam Barwey, Pinaki Pal, Jonathan F. MacArt, Troy Arcomano, and Romit Maulik. Understanding latent timescales in neural ordinary differential equa- tion models of advection-dominated dynamical systems.Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom., 476:134650, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Evolutionary analysis of Fokker-Planck equation using multi-dimensional finite element method.Procedia Engineering, 199:735–740, 2017

    Jiˇ r´ ı N´ aprstek and Radomil Kr´ al. Evolutionary analysis of Fokker-Planck equation using multi-dimensional finite element method.Procedia Engineering, 199:735–740, 2017

    2017

  27. [27]

    Unique analytical scheme for Fokker-Planck equa- tion by the matching polynomials of complete graph.J

    AN Nirmala and Kumbinarasaiah S. Unique analytical scheme for Fokker-Planck equa- tion by the matching polynomials of complete graph.J. Comput. Sci., 90:102657, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1996

    Hannes Risken.The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1996

    1996

  29. [29]

    Yulia Rubanova, Ricky T. Q. Chen, and David Duvenaud.Latent ODEs for irregularly- sampled time series, pages 5320–5330. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2019

    2019

  30. [30]

    Numerical solution of nonlinear stochastic processes under Gaussian white noise

    Ihsane Salleh, Abdelaziz Ben Lahbib, and Lahcen Azrar. Numerical solution of nonlinear stochastic processes under Gaussian white noise. In2024 World Conference on Complex Systems (WCCS), pages 1–5, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    A numerical solver for high dimensional transient Fokker- Planck equation in modeling polymeric fluids.J

    Yifei Sun and Mrinal Kumar. A numerical solver for high dimensional transient Fokker- Planck equation in modeling polymeric fluids.J. Comput. Phys., 289:149–168, 2015

    2015

  32. [32]

    Numerical solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using physics-based mixture models.Comput

    Armin Tabandeh, Neetesh Sharma, Leandro Iannacone, and Paolo Gardoni. Numerical solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using physics-based mixture models.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 399:115424, 2022

    2022

  33. [33]

    Solving high-dimensional Fokker-Planck equation with functional hierarchical tensor.J

    Xun Tang and Lexing Ying. Solving high-dimensional Fokker-Planck equation with functional hierarchical tensor.J. Comput. Phys., 511:113110, 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    A transfer learning method to solve Fokker-Planck equation based on the equivalent linearization.Chaos, 35(8):083119, 2025

    Gege Wang, Xiaolong Wang, Qi Liu, J¨ urgen Kurths, and Yong Xu. A transfer learning method to solve Fokker-Planck equation based on the equivalent linearization.Chaos, 35(8):083119, 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    Stochastic analysis of a predator- prey model with modified Leslie-Gower and holling type II schemes.Nonlinear Dyn., 101(2):1245–1262, 2020

    Shenlong Wang, Zhi Xie, Rui Zhong, and Yanli Wu. Stochastic analysis of a predator- prey model with modified Leslie-Gower and holling type II schemes.Nonlinear Dyn., 101(2):1245–1262, 2020. 41

    2020

  36. [36]

    Tensor neural networks for high-dimensional Fokker-Planck equations.Neural Netw., 185:107165, 2025

    Taorui Wang, Zheyuan Hu, Kenji Kawaguchi, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Kar- niadakis. Tensor neural networks for high-dimensional Fokker-Planck equations.Neural Netw., 185:107165, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    A novel method for response prob- ability density of nonlinear stochastic dynamic systems.Nonlinear Dyn., 113(5):3981– 3997, 2025

    Xi Wang, Jun Jiang, Ling Hong, and Jian-Qiao Sun. A novel method for response prob- ability density of nonlinear stochastic dynamic systems.Nonlinear Dyn., 113(5):3981– 3997, 2025

    2025

  38. [38]

    The pseudo-analytical probability solution to parameterized Fokker-Planck equations via deep learning.En- gineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 157:111344, 2025

    Xiaolong Wang, Jing Feng, Gege Wang, Tong Li, and Yong Xu. The pseudo-analytical probability solution to parameterized Fokker-Planck equations via deep learning.En- gineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 157:111344, 2025

    2025

  39. [39]

    Deep learning-based state prediction of the Lorenz system with control parameters.Chaos, 34(3):033108, 2024

    Xiaolong Wang, Jing Feng, Yong Xu, and J¨ urgen Kurths. Deep learning-based state prediction of the Lorenz system with control parameters.Chaos, 34(3):033108, 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Adaptive normalizing flows for solving Fokker-Planck equation.Chaos, 35(8):083116, 2025

    Wanting Xu, Jinqian Feng, Jin Su, Qin Guo, and Youpan Han. Adaptive normalizing flows for solving Fokker-Planck equation.Chaos, 35(8):083116, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    Stochastic bifurcations in a bistable Duffing-Van der Pol oscillator with colored noise.Phys

    Yong Xu, Rencai Gu, Huiqing Zhang, Wei Xu, and Jinqiao Duan. Stochastic bifurcations in a bistable Duffing-Van der Pol oscillator with colored noise.Phys. Rev. E, 83:056215, May 2011

    2011

  42. [42]

    Solving Fokker-Planck equation using deep learning.Chaos, 30(1):013133, 2020

    Yong Xu, Hao Zhang, Yongge Li, Kuang Zhou, Qi Liu, and J¨ urgen Kurths. Solving Fokker-Planck equation using deep learning.Chaos, 30(1):013133, 2020

    2020

  43. [43]

    Structure preserving stochastic Galerkin methods for Fokker-Planck equations with background interactions.Math

    Mattia Zanella. Structure preserving stochastic Galerkin methods for Fokker-Planck equations with background interactions.Math. Comput. Simul., 168:28–47, 2020

    2020

  44. [44]

    Deep learning framework for solving Fokker-Planck equations with low-rank separation representation.Eng

    Hao Zhang, Yong Xu, Qi Liu, and Yongge Li. Deep learning framework for solving Fokker-Planck equations with low-rank separation representation.Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 121:106036, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Solving Fokker- Planck equations using deep KD-tree with a small amount of data.Nonlinear Dyn., 108(4):4029–4043, 2022

    Hao Zhang, Yong Xu, Qi Liu, Xiaolong Wang, and Yongge Li. Solving Fokker- Planck equations using deep KD-tree with a small amount of data.Nonlinear Dyn., 108(4):4029–4043, 2022

    2022

  46. [46]

    Solving Fokker-Planck- Kolmogorov equation by distribution self-adaptation normalized physics-informed neu- ral networks.Physica A, 684:131251, 2026

    Yi Zhang, Yiting Duan, Xiangjun Wang, and Zhikun Zhang. Solving Fokker-Planck- Kolmogorov equation by distribution self-adaptation normalized physics-informed neu- ral networks.Physica A, 684:131251, 2026. 42

    2026