Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Solving PDEs on Unknown Manifolds with Machine Learning

Senwei Liang, Shixiao W. Jiang, John Harlim, Haizhao Yang

TL;DR

The paper tackles solving elliptic PDEs on unknown manifolds represented by point clouds, introducing a mesh-free framework that couples diffusion maps (DM) and neural networks to approximate the PDE solution. The PDE operator is discretized via DM (including variable-bandwidth DM and ghost-point variants for boundaries), and the solution is learned as a least-squares regression with a neural-network ansatz, enabling a continuous map over the manifold. The authors provide a theoretical decomposition into parametrization and optimization errors, proving convergence for infinite-width/depth networks and for wide two-layer networks under gradient descent, and they validate the approach on multiple synthetic and real-world manifold geometries, showing robust generalization relative to Nyström-based interpolation and FEM benchmarks. The work demonstrates a scalable, mesh-free pathway to PDEs on high- and unknown-co-dimension manifolds, with practical implications for physics-informed learning and geometry-aware simulations. Mathematical formulations such as $(-a+ abla_gig( abla_g uig) ight) = f$ and the DM discretization $L_ ext{ε}$ are central to the method, and the approach yields a continuous NN solution $u(oldsymbol{x}) oughly oldsymbol{x} o u(oldsymbol{x})$ on unseen data points with favorable generalization properties.

Abstract

This paper proposes a mesh-free computational framework and machine learning theory for solving elliptic PDEs on unknown manifolds, identified with point clouds, based on diffusion maps (DM) and deep learning. The PDE solver is formulated as a supervised learning task to solve a least-squares regression problem that imposes an algebraic equation approximating a PDE (and boundary conditions if applicable). This algebraic equation involves a graph-Laplacian type matrix obtained via DM asymptotic expansion, which is a consistent estimator of second-order elliptic differential operators. The resulting numerical method is to solve a highly non-convex empirical risk minimization problem subjected to a solution from a hypothesis space of neural networks (NNs). In a well-posed elliptic PDE setting, when the hypothesis space consists of neural networks with either infinite width or depth, we show that the global minimizer of the empirical loss function is a consistent solution in the limit of large training data. When the hypothesis space is a two-layer neural network, we show that for a sufficiently large width, gradient descent can identify a global minimizer of the empirical loss function. Supporting numerical examples demonstrate the convergence of the solutions, ranging from simple manifolds with low and high co-dimensions, to rough surfaces with and without boundaries. We also show that the proposed NN solver can robustly generalize the PDE solution on new data points with generalization errors that are almost identical to the training errors, superseding a Nystrom-based interpolation method.

Solving PDEs on Unknown Manifolds with Machine Learning

TL;DR

The paper tackles solving elliptic PDEs on unknown manifolds represented by point clouds, introducing a mesh-free framework that couples diffusion maps (DM) and neural networks to approximate the PDE solution. The PDE operator is discretized via DM (including variable-bandwidth DM and ghost-point variants for boundaries), and the solution is learned as a least-squares regression with a neural-network ansatz, enabling a continuous map over the manifold. The authors provide a theoretical decomposition into parametrization and optimization errors, proving convergence for infinite-width/depth networks and for wide two-layer networks under gradient descent, and they validate the approach on multiple synthetic and real-world manifold geometries, showing robust generalization relative to Nyström-based interpolation and FEM benchmarks. The work demonstrates a scalable, mesh-free pathway to PDEs on high- and unknown-co-dimension manifolds, with practical implications for physics-informed learning and geometry-aware simulations. Mathematical formulations such as and the DM discretization are central to the method, and the approach yields a continuous NN solution on unseen data points with favorable generalization properties.

Abstract

This paper proposes a mesh-free computational framework and machine learning theory for solving elliptic PDEs on unknown manifolds, identified with point clouds, based on diffusion maps (DM) and deep learning. The PDE solver is formulated as a supervised learning task to solve a least-squares regression problem that imposes an algebraic equation approximating a PDE (and boundary conditions if applicable). This algebraic equation involves a graph-Laplacian type matrix obtained via DM asymptotic expansion, which is a consistent estimator of second-order elliptic differential operators. The resulting numerical method is to solve a highly non-convex empirical risk minimization problem subjected to a solution from a hypothesis space of neural networks (NNs). In a well-posed elliptic PDE setting, when the hypothesis space consists of neural networks with either infinite width or depth, we show that the global minimizer of the empirical loss function is a consistent solution in the limit of large training data. When the hypothesis space is a two-layer neural network, we show that for a sufficiently large width, gradient descent can identify a global minimizer of the empirical loss function. Supporting numerical examples demonstrate the convergence of the solutions, ranging from simple manifolds with low and high co-dimensions, to rough surfaces with and without boundaries. We also show that the proposed NN solver can robustly generalize the PDE solution on new data points with generalization errors that are almost identical to the training errors, superseding a Nystrom-based interpolation method.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 27 sections, 13 theorems, 111 equations, 7 figures, 11 tables.

Key Result

Theorem 4.1

Let $u$ be the solution of ellipticPDE with $0<a_{\min}\leq a(x)\leq a_{\max}$ on $X=\{\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_N\}$, randomly sampled from a distribution $\pi$ on $M\subset [0,1]^n$, where $M$ is a $C^4$-manifold with condition number $\tau_M^{-1}$, volume $V_M$, and geodesic covering regular as $\epsilon\to 0$, after $N\to\infty$ and $m$ or $L\to\infty$. Hence, $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\lim_{N

Figures (7)

  • Figure 1: 2D-torus:The comparison of the $\ell_\infty$ errors as functions of the number of training points $N$ for DM and NN on a 2D torus embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$. The results labeled as "(regress DM solution)" represent conducting NN regression directly on the DM solution.
  • Figure 2: The comparison of clock-time, memory for DM and NN solvers on 2D torus embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$. In the DM case, we also report the require memory, estimated by the system process-manager, to solve the problem for large $N$, which we did not pursue due to the excessive wall-clock time. The results labeled as "(regress DM solution)" represent conducting NN regression directly on the DM solution.
  • Figure 3: Semi-torus: The comparison of the $\ell_\infty$ errors as functions of the number of training points $N$ for DM and NN on a semitorus embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$.
  • Figure 4: Comparison of the PDE solutions among the Nystrom extension ($J=600$) and NN on the semi-torus example ($N=32400$). (a) True solution. (b) Absolute difference between Nystrom and true solutions. (c) Absolute difference NN and true solutions.
  • Figure 5: The comparison of the $\ell_\infty$ errors as functions of the number of training points $N$ for DM and NN on the 3D manifold embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{12}$.
  • ...and 2 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (21)

  • Theorem 4.1: Parametrization Error
  • Lemma 4.1
  • Lemma 4.2
  • Lemma 4.3: Proposition 4.2 of du2022discovery
  • proof : Proof of Theorem \ref{['thm:pconv']}.
  • Theorem 4.2: Global Convergence of GD: Two-Layer NNs
  • Definition B.1: The Rademacher complexity of a function class $\mathcal{F}$
  • Lemma B.1: Contraction lemma Shalev-Shwartz2014
  • Lemma B.2: Rademacher complexity for linear predictors Shalev-Shwartz2014
  • Theorem B.1: Rademacher complexity and generalization gap Shalev-Shwartz2014
  • ...and 11 more