Organizations: Shanghai Innovation Institute, Shanghai, China · Faculty of Computation, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China · School of Artificial Intelligence and School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · School of Smart Governance, Renmin University of China, Suzhou, China
Large sparse linear systems from PDE discretizations require correction subspaces whose operator images explain the current residual. We study this residual-image viewpoint and propose Gate-RINS, a neural subspace solver that generates polynomial correction bases from cached residual probes and modulates them with a lightweight residual- and coordinate-dependent pointwise gate. The projected least-squares update remains unchanged, so the neural component only chooses the expansion directions while the numerical closure tests them through range(AQt). We also introduce a hybrid controller schedule that composes GRANS-style graph controllers with Gate-RINS under the same projected solver. Across six PDE-derived benchmark tasks and two scales, Gate-RINS reaches fixed relative-residual thresholds faster in synchronized wall-clock time than GMRES and a recent graph-only neural baseline in most settings, and hybrid schedules further improve the residual trajectory. Difficult-mode diagnostics and trajectory visualizations support the interpretation that these gains are associated with operator-image subspaces that align more effectively with the current residual.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A neural solver can generate a correction space whose operator image leads to a smaller projected residual than an Arnoldi-generated image space.
PDE
RINS
GRANS
GMRES
GRANS
GMRES
Poisson
0.105±0.013
0.219±0.041
0.292±0.035
2.09x
2.79x
Helmholtz
0.121±0.010
0.194±0.036
0.335±0.037
1.61x
2.77x
Heat
0.058±0.004
0.136±0.025
0.128±0.019
2.34x
2.20x
Advection-Diffusion
0.105±0.007
0.232±0.024
0.320±0.032
2.20x
3.04x
Klein-Gordon
0.061±0.009
0.120±0.014
0.138±0.045
1.97x
2.27x
Wave
0.061±0.008
0.130±0.031
0.146±0.045
2.15x
2.41x
Table 1: Time in seconds to reach relative residual 10−5 at n≈1000 . Solver-time entries are the pooled mean and standard deviation over all valid seed/sample observations. The last two columns report the speedup of RINS over GRANS and GMRES, computed from pooled mean times. The n≈10000 table is in Appendix C .
Figure 2: Main benchmark relative-residual curves at n≈1000 . Panels correspond to the six PDE-derived sparse linear-system tasks. RINS and GRANS are run for 200 neural block iterations, generating 20 new basis vectors at every neural iteration; one neural iteration is therefore not the same computational unit as one GMRES Arnoldi step. GMRES is run until it reaches min(RelResRINS,RelResGRANS) . Curves use one fixed training seed and report median residual over 10 held-out samples, with shaded bands showing the sample interquartile range. The dotted horizontal line marks 10−5 ; curves that do not cross this line within the neural budget are reported as dashes in Table 1 .
Figure 4: Hybrid inference acceleration on the Poisson problem. Hybrid(GRANS → G-RINS) uses a GRANS prefix trained for the first hybrid bootstrap step and Gate-RINS for the remaining steps, while Hybrid(GRANS → S-RINS) uses the same frozen GRANS first block followed by Static-RINS with the same m and L . Both schedules keep the same projected minimum-residual update as the standalone solvers.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
Continuous/discrete form
Poisson
−∇⋅(κ∇u)=f .
Helmholtz
−∇⋅(κ∇u)+α(x)u=f .
Heat
Backward Euler step (M+ΔtK)un+1=Mun+Δtb .
Advection–diffusion
−∇⋅(κ∇u)+v⋅∇u=f .
Klein–Gordon
(Δt−2M+c2K+Mm)un+1=fn+1+Δt−2M(2un−un−1) .
Wave
(Δt−2M+c2K)un+1=fn+1+Δt−2M(2un−un−1) .
Appendix
Table 2: PDE-derived linear systems used in the main benchmark. Klein–Gordon and wave are implicit one-step systems from second-order time-evolution equations.
Task
Train
Test
Poisson
929.35±67.81 (785–1117)
913.70±93.47 (786–1091)
Helmholtz
918.72±66.86 (741–1113)
926.10±70.60 (781–1035)
Heat
909.88±60.63 (764–1051)
922.80±55.06 (829–1011)
Advection-Diffusion
913.74±55.55 (761–1042)
918.00±67.28 (818–1026)
Klein-Gordon
919.78±64.89 (766–1092)
935.50±50.59 (892–1076)
Wave
919.57±70.94 (741–1133)
941.90±60.14 (842–1020)
Appendix
Table 3: Actual mesh-size distributions for the main benchmark at n≈1000 . Entries are mean ± standard deviation with the observed min–max range in parentheses.
Task
Train
Test
Poisson
11139.11±779.56 (9504–12964)
10794.50±1049.34 (9036–12519)
Helmholtz
11178.78±802.02 (9228–13384)
10707.10±658.70 (9864–11592)
Heat
11158.86±802.72 (8886–13347)
11257.00±1044.04 (9935–13319)
Advection-Diffusion
11128.69±832.55 (9099–13188)
11674.40±901.93 (10582–13381)
Klein-Gordon
11165.38±832.44 (9002–13012)
11336.40±656.58 (10243–12460)
Wave
11172.76±777.30 (8955–13166)
11032.60±810.63 (9810–12194)
Appendix
Table 4: Actual mesh-size distributions for the main benchmark at n≈10000 . Entries are mean ± standard deviation with the observed min–max range in parentheses.
PDE
RINS
GRANS
GMRES
GRANS
GMRES
Poisson
2.687±0.465
4.816±1.580
4.313±0.690
1.79x
1.61x
Helmholtz
2.699±0.391
7.026±3.209
4.693±0.664
2.60x
1.74x
Heat
0.867±0.114
4.557±2.121
1.602±0.221
5.26x
1.85x
Advection-Diffusion
3.080±0.644
5.656±2.232
5.139±1.058
1.84x
1.67x
Klein-Gordon
1.003±0.213
1.888±1.139
1.611±0.669
1.88x
1.61x
Wave
1.373±0.263
2.355±0.790
2.181±0.962
1.72x
1.59x
Appendix
Table 5: Time (s) to reach relative residual 10−5 at n≈10000 . Solver-time entries are the pooled mean and standard deviation over all valid seed/sample observations across the five seeds. The last two columns report the speedup of RINS over GRANS and GMRES, computed from pooled mean times.
Figure 5: Main benchmark relative-residual curves at n≈10000 . The layout and stopping rules are the same as in Figure 2 .
Figure 7: One-basis limit test at n≈1000 . Solid curves show median relative residual versus cumulative solve time, shaded bands show interquartile ranges, and numeric markers indicate 50 and 100 generated directions or GMRES iterations. Static-RINS converges rapidly in a low-dimensional accumulated subspace, whereas GRANS does not converge under this one-basis constraint.
Neural PDE solvers use trainable models to approximate solutions or solution operators for partial differential equations, often with physical constraints.
The scalable solution of large sparse linear systems is a bottleneck in scientific computing and graph analysis. While algebraic multigrid (AMG) offers optimal linear scaling, its performance is severely constrained by the trade-off between the sparsity and convergence quality of coarse-grid operators. Classical AMG heuristics struggle to balance these objectives, often sacrificing stability or performance for sparsity. We propose RAPNet, a graph neural network (GNN) framework that resolves this trade-off by learning to generate sparse, robust coarse operators directly from the sparse algebraic system. Key to our approach is a level-wise training strategy that enables learning from small subgraphs and generalization to million-node domains, bypassing the bottlenecks of prior neural AMG attempts. RAPNet executes exclusively during the solver setup phase, ensuring that the solve phase retains its favorable computational properties. We show that our method outperforms classical non-Galerkin baselines on diverse PDE discretizations and graph Laplacians, making it particularly effective for multi-query tasks such as eigenproblems, time-dependent simulations, and inverse or design problems.
Yali Fink, Ido Ben-Yair, Lars Ruthotto +1
Institute for Interdisciplinary Computational Sciences, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel · Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Neural surrogate models offer fast approximate mappings from PDE parameters to solutions, but they typically treat solving as a purely statistical task: once trained, they struggle to correct their own constraint violations and extrapolate beyond the training distribution. Recent hybrid methods promote physical correctness by targeting the PDE residual via gradient descent or Gauss--Newton steps, but inherit the compute cost and instability of the underlying classical optimizers. We show, theoretically and empirically, that numerically minimizing the PDE residual can be an unreliable proxy for reconstruction accuracy in ill-conditioned systems, explaining why these methods often do not make accurate predictions despite achieving low residuals. We propose error-conditioned Neural Solvers (ENS), built on a different principle: rather than an optimization target, the PDE residual field is passed as a direct input to the network at each iteration, enabling it to read the spatial structure of its own errors and learn an update policy to iteratively correct its predictions. Across four PDE families, ENS attains the highest prediction accuracy in the large majority of settings, with gains reaching 10× on turbulent Kolmogorov flow, while avoiding the expensive compute cost of hybrid methods. ENS's learned correction policy generalizes under distribution shift, including zero-shot parameter changes and cross-equation transfer, where its relative advantage is largest in the ill-conditioned regimes where residual minimization is least reliable. Project website: https://neuralsolver.github.io/.
Haina Jiang, Liam Wang, Peng-Chen Chen +4
University of Michigan · KAIST AI · Los Alamos National Laboratory
Neural networks trained by gradient-based methods often exhibit optimization-induced accuracy plateaus in scientific machine learning tasks. We present Linearized Subspace Refinement (LSR), an architecture-agnostic post-training framework that exploits the local linearized model at a fixed trained state. By solving a reduced direct least-squares problem in a Jacobian-defined low-dimensional space, LSR computes a subspace-optimal linearized correction and yields a refined predictor with markedly improved accuracy. Across function approximation, data-driven operator learning, physics-informed operator fine-tuning, and noisy inverse problems, LSR shows that standard nonlinear training can remain far above this subspace-attainable error level. Similar accuracy plateaus persist even for the convex quadratic problem from local linearization when solved with standard iterative optimizers, identifying numerical ill-conditioning as a primary bottleneck. LSR frequently delivers order-of-magnitude error reductions, while the subspace rank provides an explicit capacity-control mechanism that balances correction strength, numerical stability, and noise sensitivity. Together, LSR exposes conditioning-limited attainable accuracy in trained-state linearized models and provides direct access to it.
Wenbo Cao, Weiwei Zhang
Institute of AI for Industries, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 211135, China · Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China · School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China +2