Physics-informed Neural Networks for Functional Differential Equations: Cylindrical Approximation and Its Convergence Guarantees

We propose the first learning scheme for functional differential equations (FDEs). FDEs play a fundamental role in physics, mathematics, and optimal control. However, the numerical analysis of FDEs has faced challenges due to its unrealistic computational costs and has been a long standing problem over decades. Thus, numerical approximations of FDEs have been developed, but they often oversimplify the solutions. To tackle these two issues, we propose a hybrid approach combining physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) with the \textit{cylindrical approximation}. The cylindrical approximation expands functions and functional derivatives with an orthonormal basis and transforms FDEs into high-dimensional PDEs. To validate the reliability of the cylindrical approximation for FDE applications, we prove the convergence theorems of approximated functional derivatives and solutions. Then, the derived high-dimensional PDEs are numerically solved with PINNs. Through the capabilities of PINNs, our approach can handle a broader class of functional derivatives more efficiently than conventional discretization-based methods, improving the scalability of the cylindrical approximation. As a proof of concept, we conduct experiments on two FDEs and demonstrate that our model can successfully achieve typical $L^1$ relative error orders of PINNs $\sim 10^{-3}$. Overall, our work provides a strong backbone for physicists, mathematicians, and machine learning experts to analyze previously challenging FDEs, thereby democratizing their numerical analysis, which has received limited attention. Code is available at \url{https://github.com/TaikiMiyagawa/FunctionalPINN}.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 33cu6/10 · confidence 3/52024-06-26

Summary

This paper considers solving FDEs (Functional Differential Equations) using neural networks. The difficulty of solving FDEs compared to PDEs (Partial Differential Equations) lies in the fact that the input space is infinite-dimensional. In this case, the author employs Cylindrical Approximation to reduce the infinite-dimensional space to a finite-dimensional space. Then reduce the problem to a PDE case and use PINN to solve it.

Strengths

Consider the challenges of utilizing neural networks in infinite-dimensional spaces. The author's use of Cylindrical Approximation as a method to reduce the infinite-dimensional space to a finite-dimensional one is commendable. The results presented in the paper are interesting and well-written.

Weaknesses

I did not find the main issue of the paper addressed. My concern is that the theoretical part of this paper is somewhat weak. The theorems primarily present asymptotic results, i.e., asking for \(m \to \infty\). In my knowledge, there are some papers considering the functional approximation such as: 1. T. Chen and H. Chen. Approximations of continuous functionals by neural networks with application to dynamic systems. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 4(6):910–918, 1993. 2. Y. Yang and Y. Xiang. Approximation of Functionals by Neural Network without Curse of Dimensionality. 3. L. Song et al. Approximation of smooth functionals using deep ReLU networks. Except for the first paper, the other two papers provide the approximation error of functionals. In my opinion, if you have Cylindrical Approximation rates and PINN approximation rates, the total order of approximation may also be obtainable. Are there any difficulties in obtaining the approximation rate?

Questions

Mentioned in the Weakness.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

All right.

Reviewer LXGL8/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

The power of PINNs is leveraged to solved high-dimensional PDEs which are obtained from FDEs through the cylindrical approximation. FDEs are computationally expensive to learn, and PDEs are more well-studied in the context of learning. This is a novel work in making FDEs more accessible for computation since they have a wide impact across many technical disciplines.

Strengths

1. This is a novel way to circumvent longstanging numerical issues concerning computing FDEs. The idea is easy to follow, at a high level. 2. Computational complexity and expressive power are significantly improved compared to the current SOTA using cylindrical approximations that are shown to converge. 3. Notation and steps are clearly presented.

Weaknesses

The authors presented their weaknesses/limitations in a section. They could try to expand their suites of experiments to the applications outlined in the appendix e.g. Navier-Stokes modeling, etc.

Questions

I don't have questions

Rating

8

Confidence

4

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

4

Limitations

The limitations are clearly presented and have been addressed, when possible, reasonably.

Reviewer 5Xf54/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-13

Summary

In this paper, they used cylindrical approximation to transform the functional differential equation (FDE) into a higher-dimensional PDE in order to solve it using PINN.

Strengths

This is a relatively new and intriguing topic in the field of functional differential equations (FDEs), aiming to solve them using PINN as an innovative approach. To this end, specific examples of FDEs such as FTE and BHE were provided, accompanied by a clear mathematical explanation of what cylindrical approximation entails.

Weaknesses

It seems that significant improvements are needed in the experimental section. Particularly, Figure 4 and Figure 7 suffer from poor readability, with unclear x-axis and y-axis labels that make it difficult to discern their intended purpose. Moreover, to demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method effectively, it is essential to compare it with existing numerical analysis methods such as CP-ALS. Such comparisons would clarify how the proposed method reduces computational complexity, as mentioned on line 224 of the manuscript, and illustrate how the order varies with respect to $m$ ($m^6$ vs $m^r$) using the experimental results. Therefore, the experimental section appears to be lacking overall. Furthermore, cylindrical approximation has already been studied in the field of numerical analysis. Clarifying what novelty exists in applying this approach to convert FDEs into high-dimensional PDEs and then using the well-established PINN method would be beneficial. If the author claims that using deep learning to solve FDEs is novel, it is crucial to provide clear comparisons with state-of-the-art numerical methods in terms of experimental results, computation time, computational cost, accuracy, and other relevant metrics. This comparison would ultimately demonstrate how the proposed approach stands out.

Questions

* I'm curious about the range of \(\boldsymbol{a}\) in the experiments. To train with PINN, \(\boldsymbol{a}\)'s range needs to be fixed beforehand for sampling. How was this managed? * I'm interested in why r is typically "typically 1 or 2," as mentioned in line 229 of the manuscript. A detailed explanation would be helpful. * The abbreviation BHE in the caption of Figure 2 first appears in line 162. It should be mentioned earlier in the text. * Aside from FTE and BHE, I'm curious if there are more complex or challenging applications related to actual physical phenomena. * In Table 1, it seems that the relative error increases as the degree increases. Is this trend correct? I would appreciate a more detailed explanation and analysis. * Figures 11-16 are labeled as extrapolation. Could you clarify what this means?

Rating

4

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

1

Limitations

See above.

Reviewer 33cu2024-08-07

Of course, there should be a gap between the approximation rate and the experiment results, as there are training errors and sample limitations. However, obtaining the approximation error is still meaningful because it demonstrates the approximation ability of neural networks and provides insights into how to design them. Therefore, I believe the results can be improved. Nonetheless, this paper is a commendable first step in this project, and I maintain my score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Reply

> However, obtaining the (PINN) approximation error is still meaningful because it demonstrates the approximation ability of neural networks and provides insights into how to design them. We fully agree with this point; however, it would require a separate paper, as our focus is on the cylindrical approximation error rather than the PINN approximation error. Thank you for your time and support!

Reviewer 5Xf52024-08-12

Thank you for your response. However, as you mentioned, it seems that many of the critical points I considered important are mostly found in the appendix. I believe these key sections should be brought into the main text and revised in future versions. For example, the explanation for point (a), and the purpose behind figures 4 and 7, which are difficult to understand, should be revised so that their meaning and what they intend to show are clearly visible. Additionally, I still have the following questions: - In the comparison with CP-ALS for the advection-reaction equation, does the proposed method have a higher error? If so, should this be applied to higher-dimensional problems (where m is higher than 50)? In this case, is CP-ALS entirely impossible to perform, or does it just take a long time, or is the error too large? If it’s just a matter of time, then shouldn't the error after running it for a sufficient amount of time be compared in Tables 1 and 2? Or is the table meant to show that the proposed method remains applicable even as the degree increases? - Although I now understand most of my concerns through your responses, many of these points are found in the appendix or are missing from the main text. I believe adding more comparisons with existing methods in the experiments would enhance the novelty of this paper. Therefore, while I think the current version of the paper still has some shortcomings that need to be addressed before it can be accepted, I have resolved several of my concerns through your responses, so I will increase my score by 1 point, bringing it to 4. Thank you once again for addressing my questions.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thank you very much for your support. We are pleased to address your questions and concerns. > I believe these key sections should be brought into the main text and revised in future versions. For example, the explanation for point (a), Thank you for your suggestion. We have now included the range of $\boldsymbol{a}$ in the main text. > the purpose behind figures 4 and 7, which are difficult to understand, should be revised so that their meaning and what they intend to show are clearly visible. - We will replace figures to improve visibility, adjusting the size of characters and spacing. - Our intention: Figures 4 and 7 primarily demonstrate that our proposed approach effectively learns FDEs (FTE and BHE), serving as *proof of concept* (line 262). They are not intended to showcase extrapolation capability, which is a secondary message. We apologize for any confusion. We will clarify this by adding explanations around lines 293 and 320. Thank you for your invaluable feedback, which has enhanced the presentation quality of our paper. > I believe adding more comparisons with existing methods in the experiments would enhance the novelty of this paper. Thank you for the suggestion. Please note that CP-ALS and hierarchical Tucker (HT) algorithms are the only methods based on the cylindrical approximation for numerically solving FDEs, and HT is slower than CP-ALS (line 692); thus, we chose CP-ALS for comparison. Additionally, the number of papers focusing on general-purpose numerical FDE solvers is very limited [79, 91], although several papers address numerical functional approximation (not for solving FDEs). > In the comparison with CP-ALS for the advection-reaction equation, does the proposed method have a higher error? If so, should this be applied to higher-dimensional problems (where m is higher than 50)? In this case, is CP-ALS entirely impossible to perform, or does it just take a long time, or is the error too large? If it’s just a matter of time, then shouldn't the error after running it for a sufficient amount of time be compared in Tables 1 and 2? In the comparison with CP-ALS for the advection-reaction equation, our proposed method indeed has a higher error. However, performing experiments with CP-ALS (or similar finite difference or element method-based algorithms) in high dimensions is infeasible due to prohibitively long runtimes. Specifically, let us consider a state-of-the-art fast PDE solver used in [79] (published in 2024), which reports runtime of approximately 0.75 hours per time step on an Intel i9-7980XE workstation for a 20-dimensional problem. If CP-ALS had a similar runtime, it would take approximately $0.75 \times \frac{100^6}{20^6} = 0.75 \times 15625 \approx 11719$ hours (over a year) for only a single time step, due to its $\mathcal{O}(m^6)$ complexity. In contrast, our model can learn FDEs within a few hours, even at dimensions as large as $1000$. In addition to this response, we would appreciate it if the reviewer could reevaluate both our > Theoretical Contribution > Empirical Contribution summarized in our previous response or share any additional thoughts or reasons that are contributing to this (borderline) reject assessment. Understanding this would help us in further improving the work. Sincerely, Authors

Reviewer 5Xf52024-08-14

Thank you for thoroughly answering my questions. All of my concerns have been resolved. However, in my personal opinion, the current state of the paper still seems insufficient for acceptance, mainly because of the lack of explanation in the main text for the points clarified through my questions and the fact that many important details are in the appendix rather than in the main body of the paper. Therefore, I will maintain my current score. Nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts in addressing my questions and concerns.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC