Organizations: School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China. · School of Mathematics and Statistics & State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China. · School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China. · Nuclear Power Institute of China, State Key Laboratory of Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan 610213, China.
Integro-differential equations arise in a wide range of applications, including transport, kinetic theory, radiative transfer, and multiphysics modeling, where nonlocal integral operators couple the solution across phase space. Such nonlocality often introduces dense coupling blocks in deterministic discretizations, leading to increased computational cost and memory usage, while physics-informed neural networks may suffer from expensive nonconvex training and sensitivity to hyperparameter choices. In this work, we present randomized neural networks (RaNNs) as a mesh-free collocation framework for linear integro-differential equations. Because the RaNN approximation is intrinsically dense through globally supported random features, the nonlocal integral operator does not introduce an additional loss of sparsity, while the approximate solution can still be represented with relatively few trainable degrees of freedom. By randomly fixing the hidden-layer parameters and solving only for the linear output weights, the training procedure reduces to a convex least-squares problem in the output coefficients, enabling stable and efficient optimization. As a representative application, we apply the proposed framework to the steady neutron transport equation, a high-dimensional linear integro-differential model featuring scattering integrals and diverse boundary conditions. Extensive numerical experiments demonstrate that, in the reported test settings, the RaNN approach achieves competitive accuracy while incurring substantially lower training cost than the selected neural and deterministic baselines, highlighting RaNNs as a robust and efficient alternative for the numerical simulation of nonlocal linear operators.
Figures & tables
batch
particles
RSD min
RSD max
RSD average
Example 3
Case 1
1000
100000
7.2572e-04
1.6919e-03
9.9630e-04
Case 2
10000
500000
5.3084e-04
1.0547e-03
6.6250e-04
Case 3
1000
200000
6.1908e-04
1.2144e-03
7.5330e-04
Example 4
Case 1
1000
20000
6.0193e-04
9.7435e-04
6.7397e-04
Case 2
1000
20000
2.7252e-03
4.1608e-03
3.0236e-03
Case 3
1000
20000
6.1269e-04
9.5861e-04
6.8497e-04
Table 1: The input parameters and the output statistics for MCX in Example 3 - Example 5 .
x/b
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
time(s)
reference values ( [ 20 ] )
1
0.947144
0.793726
0.553290
0.214192
S200
M=100
0
2.5234e-03
7.1902e-03
3.3957e-03
5.5280e-03
0.685501
M=200
0
1.3404e-03
2.1758e-04
1.3529e-03
1.6924e-03
1.353178
M=300
0
3.3128e-04
3.7247e-03
4.1807e-04
8.0292e-04
1.967209
RaNN
m=200
0
2.5791e-04
1.2351e-03
9.9065e-04
9.4649e-02
0.017503
m=500
0
2.3516e-05
5.2369e-05
6.4748e-05
4.5558e-02
0.041313
Table 2: Pointwise relative errors and runtimes for the FDM and the RaNN method in Example 1 .
m
100
200
400
800
PINN-IDNT
PINN-EDNT
eℓ2
5.1349e-02
5.2151e-03
1.8812e-03
1.4699e-03
3.5101e-03
4.8811e-03
time(s)
0.0478
0.1049
0.2501
0.4822
28991.51
6525.75
Table 3: Relative ℓ2 errors of the scalar flux for RaNN and PINN in Example 2 (Case 1). PINN results are quoted from [ 17 ] and were obtained under different experimental conditions.
LRaNN
PINN-IDNT
PINN-EDNT
eℓ2
1.5945e-02
3.8502e-02
3.7632e-02
time(s)
6.85
34706.51
4542.73
Table 4: Relative ℓ2 errors of LRaNN method and PINN method in Case 2 of Example 2 .
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
r
2
2
2
RaNN
eℓ2
2.1970e-02
2.2756e-02
6.5209e-02
time(s)
682.04
686.78
655.53
RaNN-S
eℓ2
2.5098e-02
2.4902e-02
6.7096e-02
time(s)
392.22
369.59
342.40
Table 5: Parameter settings and relative ℓ2 errors of the scalar flux for RaNN in Example 3 (RaNN-S: sketching acceleration with the same settings as RaNN).
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
RaNN
r
4
2
3
eℓ2
4.0388e-03
4.5391e-03
8.0339e-03
time(s)
685.16
686.21
664.10
RaNN-S
eℓ2
4.1324e-03
8.0447e-03
7.8753e-03
time(s)
347.07
355.65
341.70
FV
(Nφ,Nμ)
(16,16)
Table 6: Parameter settings and relative ℓ2 errors of the scalar flux for RaNN and FV in Example 4 .
g
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Dr1
3.558980e-1
6.596100e-1
9.607760e-1
1.108734e-0
6.236020e-1
7.903360e-1
1.128812e-0
Dr2
3.184120e-1
8.259400e-1
1.180620e-0
1.168700e-0
1.436000e-0
2.508900e-0
5.300760e-0
Table 7: Macroscopic total cross sections Σt,g (cm -1 ) for the two regions in Example 5 .
Table 8: Macroscopic scattering cross sections Σs,g′→g (cm -1 ) in region Dr1 for Example 5 .
Table 9: Macroscopic scattering cross sections Σs,g′→g (cm -1 ) in region Dr2 for Example 5 .
g
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
time(s)
eℓ2
5.6894e-02
3.1044e-02
4.5269e-02
9.8361e-02
1.4397e-01
1.9357e-01
2.4744e-01
3942.39
Table 10: Relative ℓ2 errors and runtime of RaNN-S method in Example 5 .
Neural PDE solvers use trainable models to approximate solutions or solution operators for partial differential equations, often with physical constraints.
Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, University of Edinburgh and Heriot–Watt University, Edinburgh, UK · School of Mathematical & Computer Sciences, Heriot–Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China. · School of Mathematics and Statistics & State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China.