Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study conducts a comprehensive comparison between adjoint-based optimization and physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for solving PDE-constrained inverse problems, using a common framework to ensure fairness in evaluation. The findings reveal that the choice of method is significantly influenced by the representation of unknown parameters, with grid-based fields favoring adjoint methods and neural representations aligning better with PINNs. Notably, while adjoint methods can struggle with time-dependent problems due to storage and differentiation costs, a hybrid approach utilizing a PINN-warm-started adjoint strategy achieves high accuracy at a reduced computational expense.
The choice between adjoint methods and PINNs hinges on parameter representation, with a hybrid approach offering a cost-effective path to high accuracy in time-dependent inverse problems.
Inverse problems governed by partial differential equations (PDEs) are central to computational mechanics and are commonly solved by adjoint-based optimization, while physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have emerged as a flexible alternative. Their relative performance remains difficult to assess because the two approaches are often compared under different formulations, parameterizations, optimizers, and regularization choices. We present a fair comparison of adjoint optimization and PINNs for PDE-constrained inverse problems. From a common abstract formulation, we instantiate both methods on identical domains, governing equations, observation models, and regularization terms, while matching the optimizer, unknown parameterization, and arithmetic precision wherever applicable. The benchmarks include unsteady Burgers, noisy Darcy permeability inversion, three-dimensional Allen--Cahn reaction identification, and unsteady Navier--Stokes viscosity identification. The results show that the representation of the unknown largely determines the preferred method: grid-based fields favor the discrete adjoint, whereas neural representations are native to PINNs and relevant for closure and constitutive modeling. For time-dependent problems, adjoint inversion can be dominated by trajectory storage and differentiation, while PINNs provide satisfactory reconstructions at lower cost. A PINN-warm-started adjoint strategy then recovers adjoint-level accuracy at substantially reduced cost.
