arxiv: 2604.08453 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA· physics.comp-ph

Recognition: unknown

Hard-constrained Physics-informed Neural Networks for Interface Problems

Michael Penwarden, Pratanu Roy, Seung Whan Chung, Stephen Castonguay, Sumanta Roy, Yucheng Fu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-ph

keywords physics-informed neural networksinterface problemshard constraintsansatz-based methodselliptic PDEswindowing approachbuffer approach

0 comments

The pith

Hard-constrained PINN formulations embed interface continuity and flux conditions directly into the neural network solution representation.

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

The paper introduces two ansatz-based methods to enforce interface conditions exactly in physics-informed neural networks instead of using soft penalty terms. The windowing approach builds the trial solution from compactly supported subnetworks so that continuity and flux balance hold automatically. The buffer approach adds lightweight auxiliary functions that correct the solution at discrete interface and boundary points. Tests on one- and two-dimensional elliptic interface problems show that both methods improve fidelity near interfaces and eliminate loss-weight tuning in 1D, while the buffer version proves more robust in 2D.

Core claim

We introduce two ansatz-based hard-constrained PINN formulations for interface problems that embed the interface physics into the solution representation and thereby decouple interface enforcement from PDE residual minimization. The first, termed the windowing approach, constructs the trial space from compactly supported windowed subnetworks so that interface continuity and flux balance are satisfied by design. The second, called the buffer approach, augments unrestricted subnetworks with auxiliary buffer functions that enforce boundary and interface constraints at discrete points through a lightweight correction.

What carries the argument

Ansatz-based constructions that embed interface physics by design: the windowing method using compactly supported subnetworks and the buffer method using auxiliary correction functions at discrete points.

If this is right

In one-dimensional elliptic interface problems, hard constraints improve interface fidelity and remove the need for loss-weight tuning.
The windowing approach attains very high accuracy such as O(10^{-9}) on simple structured one-dimensional cases.
The buffer approach maintains accuracy around O(10^{-5}) across a wider range of source terms and interface configurations.
In two dimensions the buffer formulation is more robust because the windowing construction becomes sensitive to overlap and corner effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The buffer method's discrete correction could be adapted to time-dependent or nonlinear interface problems by updating the auxiliary functions at each time step.
Both formulations might reduce the total number of training epochs needed compared with soft-constrained PINNs because the loss landscape no longer contains competing penalty terms.
Automating selection of the discrete buffer points through an auxiliary optimization step could further improve applicability to highly irregular geometries.

Load-bearing premise

The windowing and buffer constructions remain stable for general interface geometries without introducing new fitting parameters that affect accuracy.

What would settle it

Running the windowing formulation on a two-dimensional elliptic interface problem with a curved interface and measuring whether overlap or corner effects cause the error to rise above the reported one-dimensional levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08453 by Michael Penwarden, Pratanu Roy, Seung Whan Chung, Stephen Castonguay, Sumanta Roy, Yucheng Fu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Model problem with a slanted interface in a two-dimensional domain: (a) solu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The training performance of the windowing approach on the problem in Sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The training performance of the buffer approach on the problem in Section 3.1: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Trained solution of window approach (10) for Problem 4: (a) trained solution; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Trained solution of buffer approach (Eq. 38) for Problem 4: (a) trained solution; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Boundary enforcement of the buffer approach: (a) the Neumann condition on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have emerged as a flexible framework for solving partial differential equations, but their performance on interface problems remains challenging because continuity and flux conditions are typically imposed through soft penalty terms. The standard soft-constraint formulation leads to imperfect interface enforcement and degraded accuracy near interfaces. We introduce two ansatz-based hard-constrained PINN formulations for interface problems that embed the interface physics into the solution representation and thereby decouple interface enforcement from PDE residual minimization. The first, termed the windowing approach, constructs the trial space from compactly supported windowed subnetworks so that interface continuity and flux balance are satisfied by design. The second, called the buffer approach, augments unrestricted subnetworks with auxiliary buffer functions that enforce boundary and interface constraints at discrete points through a lightweight correction. We study these formulations on one- and two-dimensional elliptic interface benchmarks and compare them with soft-constrained baselines. In one-dimensional problems, hard constraints consistently improve interface fidelity and remove the need for loss-weight tuning; the windowing approach attains very high accuracy (as low as $O(10^{-9})$) on simple structured cases, whereas the buffer approach remains accurate ($\sim O(10^{-5})$) across a wider range of source terms and interface configurations. In two dimensions, the buffer formulation is shown to be more robust because it enforces constraints through a discrete buffer correction, as the windowing construction becomes more sensitive to overlap and corner effects and over-constrains the problem. This positions the buffer method as a straightforward and geometrically flexible approach to complex interface problems.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Two new hard-constraint PINN constructions for interfaces look useful in 1D but the buffer version only hits constraints at discrete points, so the decoupling claim is weaker than stated.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is two ansatz constructions that bake interface continuity and flux balance into the network trial space for elliptic problems. Windowing uses compactly supported subnetworks so the conditions hold everywhere by design. Buffer adds lightweight correction functions that satisfy the conditions at selected points. On 1D benchmarks the windowing version reaches O(10^{-9}) errors and removes loss-weight tuning; buffer sits around O(10^{-5}) but handles more source terms and geometries without breaking. In 2D buffer proves more stable while windowing runs into overlap and corner issues. That is a practical step forward for anyone tired of balancing PDE and interface losses. The constructions appear distinct from the soft-penalty and domain-decomposition variants they cite. Experiments are limited to standard elliptic test cases and the abstract gives no error bars, convergence rates, or full training protocols, so the accuracy numbers are only moderately supported. The bigger issue is with the buffer method itself. Because it corrects only at finitely many points along a continuous interface, jumps can remain between those points and the PDE residual must still control them. This makes the claimed full decoupling incomplete for buffer, especially in 2D where geometry matters. Windowing avoids that problem but loses robustness. The work is aimed at PINN users who solve interface or multiphysics problems and want to cut down on hyperparameter search. It is worth sending to referees because the practical motivation is real and the 1D gains are clear, even though the buffer formulation needs tighter analysis and more extensive testing before it can be recommended as a general hard-constraint tool.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces two ansatz-based hard-constrained PINN formulations for interface problems: the windowing approach, which constructs the trial space from compactly supported windowed subnetworks so that interface continuity and flux balance are satisfied by design, and the buffer approach, which augments subnetworks with auxiliary buffer functions that enforce constraints at discrete points via a lightweight correction. Numerical experiments on 1D and 2D elliptic interface benchmarks demonstrate that both methods improve interface fidelity over soft-constrained baselines, eliminate loss-weight tuning, achieve errors as low as O(10^{-9}) for windowing in structured 1D cases and O(10^{-5}) for buffer across wider configurations, while noting that buffer is more robust in 2D due to windowing's sensitivity to overlap and corners.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides practical hard-constraint constructions that decouple interface enforcement from the PDE loss in PINNs, yielding measurable accuracy gains on standard benchmarks and clarifying geometric trade-offs between the two methods. Credit is given for the explicit numerical comparisons against soft baselines and for identifying the 2D robustness differences, which supply concrete guidance for practitioners.

major comments (2)

[§3.2] §3.2 (Buffer construction): the formulation enforces interface conditions only at a finite set of discrete correction points. Because the interface is a continuum (curve in 2D), pointwise satisfaction does not preclude residual jumps between points; the PDE residual loss must therefore still act to control interface behavior, rendering the claimed full decoupling incomplete for this method.
[§4] §4 (Numerical experiments): the reported error levels (O(10^{-9}) windowing in 1D, O(10^{-5}) buffer) are given without error bars from repeated runs, convergence rates versus network width or collocation density, or a complete training protocol, which leaves the quantitative accuracy claims only moderately supported and hinders assessment of reproducibility.

minor comments (2)

[Figures and §4] Figure captions and the experimental section could explicitly state the error norm (L^2, H^1, or pointwise) used for the quoted O(10^{-9}) and O(10^{-5}) figures.
[§4.2] The 2D windowing sensitivity to overlap and corner effects is noted qualitatively; a brief quantitative diagnostic (e.g., overlap parameter sweep) would clarify the limitation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below, agreeing where the observations are valid and outlining specific revisions to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Buffer construction): the formulation enforces interface conditions only at a finite set of discrete correction points. Because the interface is a continuum (curve in 2D), pointwise satisfaction does not preclude residual jumps between points; the PDE residual loss must therefore still act to control interface behavior, rendering the claimed full decoupling incomplete for this method.

Authors: We agree that the buffer approach enforces constraints only at discrete correction points rather than continuously along the interface. This is inherent to the construction, as the auxiliary buffer functions apply a lightweight correction at selected points while the PDE residual loss continues to influence the solution between them. The decoupling from the PDE loss is therefore partial for the buffer method, in contrast to the continuum enforcement achieved by windowing. We will revise §3.2 to explicitly distinguish the pointwise nature of the buffer constraints and to moderate the language regarding full decoupling for this approach. The numerical experiments nevertheless demonstrate practical benefits, including reduced sensitivity to loss-weight tuning and improved interface fidelity relative to soft-constrained baselines. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical experiments): the reported error levels (O(10^{-9}) windowing in 1D, O(10^{-5}) buffer) are given without error bars from repeated runs, convergence rates versus network width or collocation density, or a complete training protocol, which leaves the quantitative accuracy claims only moderately supported and hinders assessment of reproducibility.

Authors: The referee is correct that the reported error levels are presented without error bars from repeated runs, without convergence studies against network width or collocation density, and without a fully detailed training protocol. These omissions limit the strength of the quantitative claims and reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will add error bars computed from multiple independent training runs, include convergence plots with respect to network width and collocation density, and expand the training protocol section to specify optimizer choices, learning-rate schedules, batch sizes, and stopping criteria. These additions will directly address the concern and provide stronger support for the accuracy results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: new ansatz constructions tested on benchmarks

full rationale

The paper defines two explicit ansatz constructions (windowing via compactly supported subnetworks and buffer via auxiliary corrections at discrete points) that satisfy interface conditions by design. These are methodological choices, not derivations that reduce a claimed result back to fitted inputs or self-citations. Reported accuracies (O(10^{-9}) for windowing in 1D, O(10^{-5}) for buffer) come from numerical experiments on standard elliptic benchmarks, not from any self-referential prediction. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text; the decoupling claim follows directly from the stated trial-space definitions without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard neural-network universal approximation and the assumption that compactly supported or buffer-corrected trial functions can be constructed without introducing new free parameters beyond network weights.

axioms (1)

standard math Neural networks can approximate solutions to elliptic PDEs when trained on residuals
Invoked implicitly when claiming that embedding interface conditions decouples enforcement from residual minimization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5603 in / 1209 out tokens · 50933 ms · 2026-05-10T17:04:06.400202+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

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

2021
[2]

I. E. Lagaris, A. Likas, D. I. Fotiadis, Artificial neural networks for solving ordinary and partial differential equations, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 9 (5) (1998) 987–1000

1998
[3]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. 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 (2019) 686–707

2019
[4]

S. Wang, S. Sankaran, H. Wang, P. Perdikaris, An expert’s guide to training physics-informed neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08468 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[5]

A. D. Jagtap, G. E. Karniadakis, Extended physics-informed neural net- works (xpinns): A generalized space-time domain decomposition based deep learning framework for nonlinear partial differential equations, Communications in Computational Physics 28 (5) (2020)

2020
[6]

A. D. Jagtap, E. Kharazmi, G. E. Karniadakis, Conservative physics- informed neural networks on discrete domains for conservation laws: Applications to forward and inverse problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 365 (2020) 113028

2020
[7]

S. Li, M. Penwarden, Y. Xu, C. Tillinghast, A. Narayan, M. Kirby, S. Zhe, Meta learning of interface conditions for multi-domain physics- informed neural networks, in: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, Vol. 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2023, pp. 19855–19881

2023
[8]

S.Cuomo, V.S.DiCola, F.Giampaolo, G.Rozza, M.Raissi, F.Piccialli, Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next, Journal of Scientific Computing 92 (3) (2022) 88. 50

2022
[9]

L. Lu, R. Pestourie, W. Yao, Z. Wang, F. Verdugo, S. G. Johnson, Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse de- sign, SIAMJournalon ScientificComputing43(6)(2021)B1105–B1132

2021
[10]

Sukumar, A

N. Sukumar, A. Srivastava, Exact imposition of boundary conditions with distance functions in physics-informed deep neural networks, Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 389 (2022) 114333

2022
[11]

J. Wang, Y. Mo, B. Izzuddin, C.-W. Kim, Exact dirichlet boundary physics-informed neural network epinn for solid mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 414 (2023) 116184

2023
[12]

S. Liu, H. Zhongkai, C. Ying, H. Su, J. Zhu, Z. Cheng, A unified hard- constraint framework for solving geometrically complex pdes, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022) 20287–20299

2022
[13]

Y. Liao, P. Ming, Deep nitsche method: Deep ritz method with essential boundary conditions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01309 (2019)

work page arXiv 1912
[14]

H. Yu, S. Zhang, A natural deep ritz method for essential boundary value problems, Journal of Computational Physics (2025) 114133

2025
[15]

Sukumar, R

N. Sukumar, R. Roy, A wachspress-based transfinite formulation for exactly enforcing dirichlet boundary conditions on convex polyg- onal domains in physics-informed neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.01756 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[16]

S. Dong, Y. Zhang, A novel method for enforcing exactly dirichlet, neu- mann and robin conditions on curved domain boundaries for physics informed machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21909 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[17]

A. K. Sarma, S. Roy, C. Annavarapu, P. Roy, S. Jagannathan, Inter- face pinns (i-pinns): A physics-informed neural networks framework for interface problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En- gineering 429 (2024) 117135

2024
[18]

S. Roy, C. Annavarapu, P. Roy, A. K. Sarma, Adaptive interface-pinns (adai-pinns): An efficient physics-informed neural networks framework for interface problems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04626 (2024). 51

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

Hu, T.-S

W.-F. Hu, T.-S. Lin, M.-C. Lai, A discontinuity capturing shallow neu- ral network for elliptic interface problems, Journal of Computational Physics 469 (2022) 111576

2022
[20]

S. Roy, D. R. Sarkar, C. Annavarapu, P. Roy, B. Lecampion, D. M. Valiveti, Adaptive interface-pinns (adai-pinns) for transient diffusion: Applications to forward and inverse problems in heterogeneous media, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 244 (2025) 104305

2025
[21]

D. R. Sarkar, C. Annavarapu, P. Roy, Adaptive interface-pinns (adai- pinns) for inverse problems: Determining material properties for het- erogeneous systems, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 249 (2025) 104373

2025
[22]

P. Roy, S. T. Castonguay, Exact enforcement of temporal continuity in sequential physics-informed neural networks, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 430 (2024) 117197

2024
[23]

Moseley, A

B. Moseley, A. Markham, T. Nissen-Meyer, Finite basis physics- informed neural networks (fbpinns): a scalable domain decomposition approach for solving differential equations, Advances in Computational Mathematics 49 (4) (2023) 62

2023
[24]

Anderson, J

R. Anderson, J. Andrej, A. Barker, J. Bramwell, J.-S. Camier, J. Cer- veny, V. Dobrev, Y. Dudouit, A. Fisher, T. Kolev, W. Pazner, M. Stow- ell, V. Tomov, I.Akkerman, J. Dahm, D.Medina, S.Zampini, MFEM: A modular finite element methods library, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 81 (2021) 42–74.doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009

work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009 2021
[25]

N. Vyas, D. Morwani, R. Zhao, M. Kwun, I. Shapira, D. Brandfonbrener, L. Janson, S. Kakade, Soap: Improving and stabilizing shampoo using adam, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11321 (2024)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[26]

Dauge, Elliptic boundary value problems on corner domains: smoothness and asymptotics of solutions, Springer, 2006

M. Dauge, Elliptic boundary value problems on corner domains: smoothness and asymptotics of solutions, Springer, 2006

2006
[27]

Sharma, L

P. Sharma, L. Evans, M. Tindall, P. Nithiarasu, Stiff-pdes and physics- informed neural networks: P. sharma et al., Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 30 (5) (2023) 2929–2958. 52

2023
[28]

Lee, Least-squares enhanced physics-informed learning for singular and ill-posed partial differential equations, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 206 (2026) 301–315

E. Lee, Least-squares enhanced physics-informed learning for singular and ill-posed partial differential equations, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 206 (2026) 301–315

2026
[29]

S. Zeng, Y. Liang, Q. Zhang, Adaptive deep neural networks for solving cornersingularproblems, EngineeringAnalysiswithBoundaryElements 159 (2024) 68–80

2024
[30]

Rahaman, A

N. Rahaman, A. Baratin, D. Arpit, F. Draxler, M. Lin, F. Hamprecht, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, On the spectral bias of neural networks, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2019, pp. 5301– 5310. 53

2019