Deep Learning Approaches for Solving Differential Equations in Scientific Computing

Abstract

Differential equations are fundamental in modeling dynamic systems across physics, engineering, and finance. Traditional numerical methods, while robust, often struggle with high-dimensional problems and computational complexity. Recent advances in deep learning have introduced novel frameworks such as Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs), Deep Operator Networks (DeepONets), and neural ordinary differential equations (Neural ODEs), offering efficient and scalable alternatives. This paper explores the integration of deep learning with differential equation solvers, comparing their accuracy, computational efficiency, and application scope. We provide theoretical insights, mathematical formulations, and implementation details to demonstrate how these models outperform traditional solvers in various scientific computing scenarios.

Introduction

Differential equations are central to modeling dynamic systems in science and engineering. Traditional methods like Finite Difference (FDM), Finite Element (FEM), and Spectral Methods are effective but face challenges in high-dimensional, complex, or real-time problems. Recently, deep learning has emerged as a promising alternative for solving Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations (ODEs and PDEs) due to its flexibility, scalability, and ability to learn from sparse data.

Traditional Numerical Methods

• Euler & Runge-Kutta methods: Widely used for ODEs; simple but limited by accuracy and stability.

• FDM, FEM, Spectral Methods: Used for PDEs; effective but struggle with irregular geometries and high-dimensional domains.

• Limitations include mesh dependency, curse of dimensionality, and poor scalability on parallel hardware.

Deep Learning Foundations

• Neural networks, supported by the Universal Approximation Theorem, can approximate complex functions.

• Key components:

  • Loss functions include physical laws and boundary conditions.

  • Optimization uses techniques like Adam or L-BFGS.

  • Architectures vary: CNNs for spatial data, RNNs for temporal dynamics.

• Deep learning shifts focus from data fitting to physics-informed modeling.

Key Deep Learning Approaches

1. Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs)

• Embed physical laws into the loss function.

• Mesh-free, use automatic differentiation for derivatives.

• Generalize well but are computationally intensive and sensitive to architecture and sampling.

2. Neural ODEs

• Treat hidden states as solutions of ODEs, enabling continuous-depth modeling.

• Provide adaptive time-stepping and efficient parameterization.

• Useful for time-series and dynamic systems, though training can be expensive and unstable with stiff equations.

3. Deep Operator Networks (DeepONets)

• Learn mappings between functions, not just pointwise input-output pairs.

• Once trained, provide instant predictions across varied input conditions.

• Effective in high-dimensional, parametric problems, but require large, diverse training datasets.

Training Techniques & Optimization

• Use composite loss functions balancing data, PDEs, and boundary conditions.

• Optimizers like Adam and L-BFGS, plus automatic differentiation, are crucial.

• Strategies include:

  • Curriculum learning

  • Adaptive sampling

  • Regularization (dropout, early stopping)

  • Pretraining on synthetic data

Applications

• Fluid dynamics: PINNs solve Navier-Stokes equations efficiently.

• Material science: DeepONets model complex material behavior.

• Quantum mechanics: Neural models approximate Schrödinger’s equation.

• Astrophysics and climate modeling: Enable large-scale simulations with sparse data.

• Applications benefit from mesh-free modeling, fast inference, and parameter adaptability.

Challenges & Limitations

• Stability and convergence in stiff or discontinuous systems.

• Lack of theoretical error guarantees limits trust in critical domains.

• High computational cost during training.

• Data availability and integration with classical solvers remain hurdles.

Future Directions

• Symbolic AI + deep learning for interpretability and discovery of physical laws.

• Self-supervised models to reduce data requirements.

• Solving stochastic differential equations (SDEs) with uncertainty quantification.

• Federated learning for distributed and privacy-preserving training.

• Hybrid methods combining traditional and neural solvers.

• Advances in AI hardware to improve scalability and accessibility.

Conclusion

Deep learning has emerged as a transformative approach for solving differential equations in scientific computing. Techniques like Physics-Informed Neural Networks, Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, and Deep Operator Networks have demonstrated remarkable capability in handling complex, high-dimensional problems where traditional methods face limitations. These approaches combine data-driven learning with physical laws to produce accurate, scalable, and mesh-free solutions. While challenges such as training stability, computational cost, and theoretical guarantees remain, ongoing research is addressing these issues through innovative architectures, optimization strategies, and hybrid models. The future holds promising developments in integrating symbolic reasoning, self-supervised learning, stochastic modeling, and distributed training, all of which will expand the reach and effectiveness of neural solvers. Ultimately, the synergy between deep learning and numerical analysis is poised to redefine computational methods across science and engineering, enabling more efficient, interpretable, and adaptable solutions to complex differential equations.

References

[1] Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686–707. [2] Chen, R. T. Q., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J., & Duvenaud, D. (2018). Neural Ordinary Differential Equations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31. [3] Lu, L., Jin, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2021). Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(3), 218–229. [4] Karniadakis, G. E., Kevrekidis, I. G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., & Yang, L. (2021). Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 422–440. [5] Raissi, M., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2018). Hidden physics models: Machine learning of nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 357, 125–141. [6] Sirignano, J., & Spiliopoulos, K. (2018). DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 375, 1339–1364. [7] Zang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2020). Weak adversarial networks for high-dimensional partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 429, 109949. [8] Han, J., Jentzen, A., & E, W. (2018). Solving high-dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(34), 8505–8510. [9] Lu, L., Meng, X., Mao, Z., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2021). DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equations. SIAM Review, 63(1), 208–228. [10] Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-informed generative adversarial networks for stochastic differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 397, 108050. [11] Rackauckas, C., Ma, Y., Martensen, J., Warner, C., Zubov, K., Supekar, R., ... & Ramadhan, A. (2020). Universal Differential Equations for Scientific Machine Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385. [12] Kovachki, N. B., Azizzadenesheli, K., Bauer, S., et al. (2021). Neural Operator: Learning Maps Between Function Spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.08481. [13] Tartakovsky, A. M., Marrero, C. O., Perdikaris, P., et al. (2020). Physics-informed deep learning for nonlinear multiphysics problems. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 133, 106675. [14] Meng, X., Li, Z., Zhang, D., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2020). PPINNs: Parallel Physics-Informed Neural Networks based on domain decomposition. Journal of Computational Physics, 429, 109927.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Dr. A. Prashanthi, Dr. D. Saraswathi, Jagdip Singh , Bangari Manasa, Kuchimanchi Jayasri, Mr. A. Durai Ganesh . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.