Physics-Informed Deep Orthogonal Decomposition with Calibrated Uncertainty Quantification for Reduced-Order Modelling of Parametrized Partial Differential Equations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66972/iscis202618Keywords:
Reduced-Order Modelling, Adaptive Reduced Basis, Physics-Informed Learning, Uncertainty Quantification, Conformal Prediction, Kolmogorov WidthAbstract
Solving parametrized partial differential equations thousands of times is the bottleneck of design, control, inversion, and digital-twin workflows. Reduced-order models answer it by replacing the expensive discretization with a fast surrogate. Adaptive-basis surrogates, such as the deep orthogonal decomposition, break the slow decay of the Kolmogorov width for problems whose parameters interact with space. This work develops physics-informed deep orthogonal decomposition, which supervises a continuously adaptive basis and the reduced coefficients with the discrete equation residual at unlabelled collocation parameters. The surrogate learns from points the high-fidelity solver never visits. A calibrated uncertainty layer couples a heteroscedastic aleatoric estimate with a deep-ensemble epistemic estimate. The linear decoder is proven to transport this uncertainty to the physical field exactly and without inflation. A solver-free trust indicator fuses the predictive variance, the equation residual, and a Grassmann distance to the training manifold, backed by an exact error decomposition, two-sided residual bounds, and a distribution-free coverage guarantee.
Downloads
References
[1] Benner, P., Gugercin, S., & Willcox, K. (2015). A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM Review, 57(4), 483–531. https://doi.org/10.1137/130932715
[2] Quarteroni, A., Manzoni, A., & Negri, F. (2016). Reduced basis methods for partial differential equations: An introduction. Springer.
[3] Hesthaven, J. S., Rozza, G., & Stamm, B. (2016). Certified reduced basis methods for parametrized partial differential equations. Springer.
[4] Rozza, G., Huynh, D. B. P., & Patera, A. T. (2008). Reduced basis approximation and a posteriori error estimation for affinely parametrized elliptic coercive partial differential equations. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 15(3), 229–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024948
[5] Berkooz, G., Holmes, P., & Lumley, J. L. (1993). The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 25(1), 539–575.
[6] Sirovich, L. (1987). Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. part i: Coherent structures. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 45(3), 561–571.
[7] Kunisch, K., & Volkwein, S. (2002). Galerkin proper orthogonal decomposition methods for a general equation in fluid dynamics. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 40(2), 492–515. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142900382612
[8] Cohen, A., & DeVore, R. (2015). Approximation of high-dimensional parametric pdes. Acta Numerica, 24, 1–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492915000033
[9] Ohlberger, M., & Rave, S. (2016). Reduced basis methods: Success, limitations and future challenges. Proceedings of the Conference Algoritmy, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1511.02021
[10] Greif, C., & Urban, K. (2019). Decay of the Kolmogorov N-width for wave problems. Applied Mathematics Letters, 96, 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2019.05.013
[11] Peherstorfer, B. (2022). Breaking the Kolmogorov barrier with nonlinear model reduction. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 69(5), 725–733.
[12] Lee, K., & Carlberg, K. T. (2020). Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders. Journal of Computational Physics, 404, 108973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108973
[13] Fresca, S., Dede’, L., & Manzoni, A. (2021). A comprehensive deep learning-based approach to reduced order modeling of nonlinear time-dependent parametrized pdes. Journal of Scientific Computing, 87(2), 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-021-01462-7
[14] Fresca, S., & Manzoni, A. (2022). POD-DL-ROM: Enhancing deep learning-based reduced order models for nonlinear parametrized PDEs by proper orthogonal decomposition. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 388, 114181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.114181
[15] Amsallem, D., & Farhat, C. (2008). Interpolation method for adapting reduced-order models and application to aeroelasticity. AIAA Journal, 46(7), 1803–1813. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.35374
[16] Amsallem, D., Zahr, M. J., & Farhat, C. (2012). Nonlinear model order reduction based on local reduced-order bases. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 92(10), 891–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.4371
[17] Pagani, S., Manzoni, A., & Quarteroni, A. (2018). Numerical approximation of parametrized problems in cardiac electrophysiology by a local reduced basis method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 340, 530–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.06.003
[18] Taddei, T. (2020). A registration method for model order reduction: Data compression and geometry reduction. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42(2), A997–A1027. https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1271270
[19] Hesthaven, J. S., & Ubbiali, S. (2018). Non-intrusive reduced order modeling of nonlinear problems using neural networks. Journal of Computational Physics, 363, 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.02.037
[20] Guo, M., & Hesthaven, J. S. (2019). Data-driven reduced order modeling for time-dependent problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 345, 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.10.029
[21] Franco, N. R., Manzoni, A., Zunino, P., & Hesthaven, J. S. (2026). Deep orthogonal decomposition: A continuously adaptive neural network approach to model order reduction of parametrized partial differential equations. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 52, 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-026-10295-7
[22] 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045
[23] Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Z., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2021). Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(3), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00302-5
[24] Li, Z., Kovachki, N., Azizzadenesheli, K., Liu, B., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A., & Anandkumar, A. (2021). Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. International Conference on Learning Representations. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.08895
[25] Wang, S., Wang, H., & Perdikaris, P. (2021). Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed DeepONets. Science Advances, 7(40), eabi8605. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi8605
[26] Kovachki, N., Li, Z., Liu, B., Azizzadenesheli, K., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A., & Anandkumar, A. (2023). Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(89), 1–97.
[27] Chen, W., Wang, Q., Hesthaven, J. S., & Zhang, C. (2021). Physics-informed machine learning for reduced-order modeling of nonlinear problems. Journal of Computational Physics, 446, 110666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110666
[28] Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., & Blundell, C. (2017). Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1612.01474
[29] Gal, Y., & Ghahramani, Z. (2016). Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. International Conference on Machine Learning, 1050–1059. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.02142
[30] Daxberger, E., Kristiadi, A., Immer, A., Eschenhagen, R., Bauer, M., & Hennig, P. (2021). Laplace Redux: Effortless Bayesian deep learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.14806
[31] Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., & Shafer, G. (2005). Algorithmic learning in a random world. Springer.
[32] Angelopoulos, A. N., & Bates, S. (2023). Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 16(4), 494–591. https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000101
[33] Seitzer, M., Tavakoli, A., Antic, D., & Martius, G. (2022). On the pitfalls of heteroscedastic uncertainty estimation with probabilistic neural networks. International Conference on Learning Representations. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.09168
[34] Edelman, A., Arias, T. A., & Smith, S. T. (1998). The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 20(2), 303–353. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479895290954
[35] Absil, P.-A., Mahony, R., & Sepulchre, R. (2008). Optimization algorithms on matrix manifolds. Princeton University Press.
[36] Peherstorfer, B., Willcox, K., & Gunzburger, M. (2018). Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. SIAM Review, 60(3), 550–591. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M108246
[37] Prud’homme, C., Rovas, D. V., Veroy, K., Machiels, L., Maday, Y., Patera, A. T., & Turinici, G. (2002). Reliable real-time solution of parametrized partial differential equations: Reduced-basis output bound methods. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 124(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1448332
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Umar Daraz, Sehrish Maryam, Khaleel Ahmad (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under the 