Scientific Machine Learning for PDEs: Operators, Surrogates, and Error-Controlled Multi-Fidelity Schemes

Authors

    Elif Yılmaz Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
    Omar Al-Khatib * Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. omar.alkhatib@ju.edu.jo

Keywords:

Scientific machine learning, partial differential equations, operator learning; surrogate modeling, multi-fidelity frameworks, uncertainty quantification, physics-informed neural networks, error control

Abstract

This review aims to synthesize recent advances in scientific machine learning (SciML) for solving partial differential equations (PDEs), focusing on operator learning, surrogate modeling, and error-controlled multi-fidelity frameworks that integrate data-driven intelligence with physical consistency. This study adopted a qualitative, interpretive review design based on a systematic literature analysis of thirteen peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2019 and 2025. The data collection process relied exclusively on scholarly databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore, targeting works addressing neural operator architectures, hybrid physics–ML couplings, and multi-fidelity adaptation. All sources were imported into Nvivo 14 software for coding and thematic synthesis. Open, axial, and selective coding cycles were performed until theoretical saturation was achieved. Four main categories—operator learning paradigms, surrogate and reduced-order models, error-controlled multi-fidelity schemes, and computational integration—were extracted and structured according to their conceptual relationships and methodological contributions. The review identified that operator learning (e.g., DeepONet, Fourier Neural Operator, and physics-informed variants) provides a scalable framework for learning function-to-function mappings across PDE families. Surrogate modeling emerged as an efficient approach for reduced-order representation and hybrid PDE–ML coupling, while sparse, compressive, and latent-space techniques improved model interpretability and efficiency. Multi-fidelity architectures, integrating uncertainty quantification and adaptive refinement, offered robust mechanisms for cost-accuracy optimization and error control. Finally, the implementation trend emphasized high-performance computing, benchmarking (PDEBench), hybrid symbolic–numeric integration, and reproducibility practices as essential to operational deployment. Scientific machine learning for PDEs is transitioning from experimental novelty to a mature computational paradigm that unifies physics-informed theory, data-driven surrogacy, and adaptive error control. Its promise lies in producing generalizable, trustworthy, and computationally efficient solvers that can accelerate discovery across domains such as fluid mechanics, climate modeling, and structural dynamics while maintaining physical interpretability and numerical rigor.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Brunton, S. L., et al. (2023). Machine learning for partial differential equations. arXiv.

Cuomo, S., et al. (2022). Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks. Journal of Scientific Computing.

Fernández-Godino, M. G. (2023). Review of multi-fidelity models. AIMS Applied Computational Science and Engineering, 8(1), 1–23.

Freund, J. B., MacArt, J. F., & Sirignano, J. (2019). DPM: A deep learning PDE augmentation method. arXiv.

Hauck, J., et al. (2025). Discretization-independent multifidelity operator learning. arXiv.

Howard, A. A., et al. (2023). Multifidelity deep operator networks for data-driven and efficient operator learning. Journal of Computational Physics, 485, 112005.

Kramer, B., et al. (2024). Learning nonlinear reduced models from data. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 56, 1–25.

MacKinlay, D., et al. (2022). An extensive benchmark for scientific machine learning (PDEBench). NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks.

McGreivy, N., & Hakim, A. (2024). Weak baselines and reporting biases in ML for PDEs. arXiv.

Qian, E., Farcas, I.-G., & Willcox, K. (2021). Reduced operator inference for nonlinear partial differential equations. arXiv.

Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear PDEs. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686–707.

Sendrea, R. E., et al. (2024). A review of multi-fidelity learning approaches for electromagnetics. Electronics, 14(1), 89.

Stephany, R., et al. (2024). PDE-LEARN: Using deep learning to discover partial differential equations. Neural Networks, 175, 106–122.

Wu, Y., et al. (2024). Physics-informed machine learning: A comprehensive overview. Applied Soft Computing, 151, 110028.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-01

Submitted

2025-06-01

Revised

2025-07-28

Accepted

2025-08-03

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Yılmaz, E., & Al-Khatib, O. (2025). Scientific Machine Learning for PDEs: Operators, Surrogates, and Error-Controlled Multi-Fidelity Schemes. Multidisciplinary Engineering Science Open, 2, 1-12. https://jmesopen.com/index.php/jmesopen/article/view/18

Similar Articles

1-10 of 17

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.