Lecture notes on Physics Informed Neural Networks, Neural Operators, and their applications

Physics-informed neural operators (PINOs) aim to learn solution operators for partial differential equations by using the governing physics as supervision, rather than relying solely on paired input-output simulation data. By incorporating physical constraints into the training objective, PINOs combine the cross-instance generalization of neural operators with the data efficiency of physics-informed learning. Despite this promise, how to train PINOs efficiently and robustly remains less well-understood than the training of either data-driven neural operators or physics-informed neural networks (PINNs). To bridge this gap, we examine key components of the PINO training pipeline, including architecture design, optimizer choice, loss balancing, and collocation-point sampling strategy. We study three representative operator backbones, Deep Operator Network (DeepONet), Fourier Neural Operator (FNO), and Continuous Vision Transformer (CViT), across five diverse parametric PDE systems. Our results show that CViT provides consistently strong and stable performance across the considered benchmarks. Beyond architecture, we find that several optimization pathologies previously identified in PINN training naturally arise in PINOs, including gradient conflicts and causal violation. We also find that mitigation algorithms developed for PINNs remain effective in the PINO setting. We further compare physics-informed and data-driven training under different data regimes, revealing that a carefully designed physics-informed training pipeline can match, and in some cases, outperform purely data-driven neural operators. Taken together, these findings provide a systematic empirical understanding of the optimization challenges in PINO training and inform a practical pipeline for efficient and robust physics-informed operator learning. Code and data are available at https://github.com/NanxiiChen/PI-CViT.

Neural operators evaluate parametric partial differential equations cheaply but degrade sharply outside their training distribution. Physics-informed neural networks avoid dependence on labeled data, yet their optimization can be basin-fragile: when the governing residual admits multiple solutions, a PINN trained from scratch may converge to a physically incorrect state despite achieving a small residual. We show that these failure modes can be addressed jointly: an imperfect NO provides the structural prior needed to place a PINN in the correct solution basin, while the PDE residual refines the solution beyond the operator's accuracy. We introduce a three-stage framework that freezes the spatial basis of a physics-informed NO, extrapolates its solution branch to an out-of-distribution parameter using a polynomial continuation prior, and distills the resulting field into a fresh PINN. The NO need not be accurate at the target; it transfers solution-branch information, while PDE residual minimization in the PINN governs convergence. We evaluate the framework on three nonlinear PDEs: 1D viscous Burgers, 2D steady Allen-Cahn near a pitchfork bifurcation, and 2D steady lid-driven cavity flow. For Allen-Cahn, where the trivial solution satisfies the PDE residual exactly, a standard PINN collapses to the trivial zero branch, whereas distillation from the crude extrapolated operator recovers the non-trivial branch that matches the finite-difference reference. For the lid-driven cavity, extrapolating to a Reynolds number of Re = 3200 accelerates convergence to the correct physical state, achieving competitive accuracy using fewer parameters and optimization steps than recent literature baselines. These results establish a simple principle: an NO need not accurately predict the solution to be useful; it only needs to identify the correct basin from which PINN optimization can recover it.

This paper is a step-by-step, self-contained guide to the complete training cycle of a Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) -- a topic that existing tutorials and guides typically delegate to automatic differentiation libraries without exposing the underlying algebra. Using a first-order initial value problem with a known analytical solution as a running example, we walk through every stage of the process: forward propagation of both the network output and its temporal derivative, evaluation of a composite loss function built from the ODE residual and the initial condition, backpropagation of gradients -- with particular attention to the product rule that arises in hidden layers -- and a gradient descent parameter update. Every calculation is presented with explicit, verifiable numerical values using a 1-3-3-1 multilayer perceptron with two hidden layers and 22 trainable parameters. From these concrete examples, we derive general recursive formulas -- expressed as sensitivity propagation relations -- that extend the gradient computation to networks of arbitrary depth, and we connect these formulas to the automatic differentiation engines used in practice. The trained network is then validated against the exact solution, achieving a relative $L^2$ error of $4.290 \times 10^{-4}$ using only the physics-informed loss, without any data from the true solution. A companion Jupyter/PyTorch notebook reproduces every manual calculation and the full training pipeline, providing mutual validation between hand-derived and machine-computed gradients.