Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Can Physics-Informed Neural Networks beat the Finite Element Method?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.04107 v1 pith:AXFCUDNG submitted 2023-02-08 math.NA cs.LGcs.NA

classification math.NAcs.LGcs.NA
keywords networksneuralelementfinitemethodphysics-informeddifferentialequations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Partial differential equations play a fundamental role in the mathematical modelling of many processes and systems in physical, biological and other sciences. To simulate such processes and systems, the solutions of PDEs often need to be approximated numerically. The finite element method, for instance, is a usual standard methodology to do so. The recent success of deep neural networks at various approximation tasks has motivated their use in the numerical solution of PDEs. These so-called physics-informed neural networks and their variants have shown to be able to successfully approximate a large range of partial differential equations. So far, physics-informed neural networks and the finite element method have mainly been studied in isolation of each other. In this work, we compare the methodologies in a systematic computational study. Indeed, we employ both methods to numerically solve various linear and nonlinear partial differential equations: Poisson in 1D, 2D, and 3D, Allen-Cahn in 1D, semilinear Schr\"odinger in 1D and 2D. We then compare computational costs and approximation accuracies. In terms of solution time and accuracy, physics-informed neural networks have not been able to outperform the finite element method in our study. In some experiments, they were faster at evaluating the solved PDE.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Generalized Lie Symmetries in Physics-Informed Neural Operators

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using evolutionary representatives of Lie point symmetries as a loss augmentation term provides a stronger training signal than standard point symmetries for physics-informed neural operators.

  2. Acceleration of RANS Solver Convergence via Initialization with Wake Extension Models

    physics.flu-dyn 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A CNN that predicts downstream wake profiles from a single RANS solution can warm-start a RANS solver, cutting iterations by 26.3x and wall-clock time by 16.4x on a NACA0012 case.

  3. Development and Analysis of Chien-Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Singular Perturbation Problems

    math.NA 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A known PINN variant with boundary-layer subnetworks is applied to more singular perturbation problems, but accuracy is only reported via training loss, not solution error.

Pith tools