mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

From inverse problems to neural operators: prediction, mechanism, and generalization of data-driven models

arXiv 2606.08956 ↗First posted 8 Jun 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Scientists have historically relied on mathematical models based on differential equations to relate system inputs -- forces, fluxes, or heat sources -- to outputs, such as displacement, velocity, concentration, and temperature. These models rely on deep domain knowledge to determine the form of the governing differential equation, which is then calibrated with data by solving an inverse problem. In recent years, the field of Scientific Machine Learning has introduced a variety of alternative modeling strategies for physical systems. A method called Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics learns the governing equation as a sparse linear combination of terms in a user-defined library. Neural Ordinary Differential Equations construct the governing equation by taking in the state and its derivatives at the input layer of a neural network. Entirely foregoing the modeling framework of differential equations, neural operators directly learn a non-linear mapping between the system inputs and outputs. From inverse problems to neural operators, all of these modeling strategies can be conceptualized as data-driven machinery to predict a system's response over a range of inputs. It is then natural to wonder how exactly these various strategies relate to each other, and whether they can be neatly taxonomized. Drawing from the philosophical literature on scientific models, we argue that many model types have a common structure, differing only in the assumed model class of the input-output relation they define. Connecting to philosophical ideas on mechanism, and arguing that data from physical systems arises from solutions to parsimonious differential equations, we propose that only certain models are capable of mechanism discovery, and thus generalization. Our analysis is intended to unite apparently disparate modeling strategies and provide insight into their appropriate use cases.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

Builds on

15 of 70 references.

References · 15

  1. 2020Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equationscited by 2,857
  2. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,666
  3. 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 920
  4. 2019AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regressioncited by 540
  5. 2020Weak SINDy For Partial Differential Equationscited by 154
  6. 2022NOMAD: Nonlinear Manifold Decoders for Operator Learningcited by 83
  7. 2023LNO: Laplace Neural Operator for Solving Differential Equationscited by 47
  8. 2023Operator learning with PCA-Net: upper and lower complexity boundscited by 44
  9. 2020SINDy-BVP: Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics for Boundary Value Problemscited by 22
  10. 2021On structural and practical identifiabilitycited by 19
  11. 2024Basis-to-Basis Operator Learning Using Function Encoderscited by 17
  12. 2025Defining Foundation Models for Computational Science: A Call for Clarity and Rigorcited by 16
3 more
  1. 2019What can be estimated? Identifiability, estimability, causal inference and ill-posed inverse problemscited by 11
  2. 2025Solving engineering eigenvalue problems with neural networks using the Rayleigh quotientcited by 8
  3. 2024Learning Adaptive Hydrodynamic Models Using Neural ODEs in Complex Conditionscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.