mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Breakeven complexity: A new perspective on neural partial differential equation solvers

arXiv 2605.15399 ↗First posted 14 May 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.NAcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Neural surrogate solvers of partial differential equations (PDEs) promise dramatic speedups over numerical methods, especially in scenarios requiring many solves. However, current accuracy-based evaluations do not fully consider two central issues: (1) neural solvers incur substantial up-front costs for data generation, training, and tuning; and (2) classical solvers can also generate low-fidelity solutions at a sufficiently low simulation cost. To explicitly account for these realities and fully incorporate end-to-end costs, we propose an evaluation framework centered on breakeven complexity, a metric that counts the forward solves before a learned solver is cost-effective relative to an error-equivalent traditional solver. To evaluate this measure, we apply scaling laws to determine how much training budget to allocate to data generation and discuss how to achieve smooth error-matching in diverse settings. We evaluate the breakeven complexity of multiple neural PDE solvers on three PDEs on 2D periodic domains from APEBench and a novel benchmark of flows past multiple obstacles generated by the GPU-native PyFR code. Among other findings, our results suggest that neural PDE solvers become more effective as problems get harder in terms of cost, dimension, rollout, physics regime (e.g. higher Reynolds number), etc.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.

Builds on

22 of 34 references.

References · 22

  1. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
  2. 2020Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equationscited by 2,806
  3. 2021Machine learning accelerated computational fluid dynamicscited by 461
  4. 2022PDEBENCH: An Extensive Benchmark for Scientific Machine Learningcited by 396
  5. 2017Physics Informed Deep Learning (Part I): Data-driven Solutions of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equationscited by 362
  6. 2021Factorized Fourier Neural Operatorscited by 237
  7. 2022Towards Multi-spatiotemporal-scale Generalized PDE Modelingcited by 190
  8. 2024Poseidon: Efficient Foundation Models for PDEscited by 186
  9. 2024DPOT: Auto-Regressive Denoising Operator Transformer for Large-Scale PDE Pre-Trainingcited by 137
  10. 2024The Well: a Large-Scale Collection of Diverse Physics Simulations for Machine Learningcited by 134
  11. 2024Weak baselines and reporting biases lead to overoptimism in machine learning for fluid-related partial differential equationscited by 87
  12. 2022Generic bounds on the approximation error for physics-informed (and) operator learningcited by 65
10 more
  1. 2024APEBench: A Benchmark for Autoregressive Neural Emulators of PDEscited by 51
  2. 2025Parameters vs FLOPs: Scaling Laws for Optimal Sparsity for Mixture-of-Experts Language Modelscited by 48
  3. 2021Machine Learning For Elliptic PDEs: Fast Rate Generalization Bound, Neural Scaling Law and Minimax Optimalitycited by 40
  4. 2025Walrus: A Cross-Domain Foundation Model for Continuum Dynamicscited by 26
  5. 2025DISCO: learning to DISCover an evolution Operator for multi-physics-agnostic predictioncited by 21
  6. 2024FlowBench: A Large Scale Benchmark for Flow Simulation over Complex Geometriescited by 18
  7. 2025EddyFormer: Accelerated Neural Simulations of Three-Dimensional Turbulence at Scalecited by 6
  8. 2025A Benchmarking Framework for AI models in Automotive Aerodynamicscited by 4
  9. 2022Neural Networks to solve Partial Differential Equations: a Comparison with Finite Elementscited by 2
  10. 2025Pre-Generating Multi-Difficulty PDE Data for Few-Shot Neural PDE Solverscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.