Examining the robustness of Physics-Informed Neural Networks to noise for Inverse Problems
TL;DR
This work compares the performance of PINNs in solving inverse problems with that of a traditional approach using the finite element method combined with a numerical optimizer and finds that while PINNs may require less human effort and specialized knowledge, they are outperformed by the traditional approach.
Abstract
Approximating solutions to partial differential equations (PDEs) is fundamental for the modeling of dynamical systems in science and engineering. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) are a recent machine learning-based approach, for which many properties and limitations remain unknown. PINNs are widely accepted as less computationally efficient and accurate than traditional methods for solving PDEs, such as the finite element method. However, PINNs are commonly claimed to show promise in solving inverse problems and handling noisy or incomplete data. We compare the performance of PINNs in solving inverse problems with that of a traditional approach using the finite element method combined with a numerical optimizer. The models are tested on viscosity identification in 1D Burgers'equation and in 2D/3D Taylor-Green Vortex, in all cases with additive Gaussian noise applied to training and validation data. We find that while PINNs may require less human effort and specialized knowledge, they are outperformed by the traditional approach. For example, for 2D Taylor-Green Vortex with {\sigma}=1 noise, the baseline has a mean prediction RMSE of 0.0013 compared to 0.01 for the best PINN variation. However, PINNs scale better than the baseline with the computational complexity of the problem. We identify failures during training to be addressed if the PINN performance on noisy inverse problems is to become more competitive.
