Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a hybrid strategy that utilizes a physics-informed neural network (PINN) as a residual probe to enhance adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) in finite-difference solvers for partial differential equations (PDEs). By sampling the PINN residual to create cellwise indicators, the method effectively guides mesh refinement, achieving a final relative \(L^2\) error of \(0.021067\) with only \(60\) degrees of freedom, outperforming uniform refinement which required \(192\) degrees of freedom. The findings demonstrate that while PINN-guided AMR can significantly improve efficiency, it does not universally surpass traditional gradient indicators or uniform refinement methods.
PINN-guided adaptive mesh refinement can achieve comparable accuracy with significantly fewer degrees of freedom, revolutionizing efficiency in finite-difference PDE solvers.
Classical finite-difference solvers remain reliable tools for partial differential equations, but their efficiency depends on where mesh resolution is placed. Uniform refinement can waste degrees of freedom when solution difficulty is localised near sharp gradients, fronts, oscillations, or constraint-sensitive regions. This paper studies a hybrid strategy in which a physics-informed neural network (PINN) is used not as the final solver, but as an off-grid residual probe for adaptive mesh refinement. The PINN residual is sampled over the domain, converted into cellwise indicators, and used to guide refinement before the final approximation is computed by a finite-difference solver. The method is evaluated on three benchmarks. The main full-solver validation uses the one-dimensional viscous Burgers equation with a nonuniform finite-difference solve on the adapted meshes. PINN-threshold refinement attains final relative $L^2$ error $0.021067$ with $60$ degrees of freedom, compared with $0.022617$ for uniform refinement with $192$ degrees of freedom. At matched mesh size, PINN-threshold reduces the error by about $67.5\%$. PINN-D"orfler refinement gives similar performance, with error $0.021264$ using $58$ degrees of freedom. A gradient indicator remains slightly more accurate, so the result supports usefulness rather than universal superiority. Manufactured 2D and 3D proxy tests, based on a nonlinear Schr"odinger equation and an incompressible Navier--Stokes system, show that PINN residuals can organise structured refinement and improve over random refinement, although they do not consistently outperform gradient or uniform baselines. The results support PINN-guided AMR as a residual-indicator strategy for transferring physics-informed diagnostic information into finite-difference mesh adaptation while preserving the classical solver as the final approximation engine.