SPEAR: A Spectral-Disentangled MoE Neural Operator with Knowledge-Guided Expert Aggregation for Large-Scale PDE Pretraining
Authors: Dengdi Sun, Xiaoya Zhou, Xiao Wang, Wanli Lyu, Jin Tang, Bin Luo
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China
Large-scale pre-training has improved the generalization of neural operators across diverse PDEs. However, existing PDE foundation models still struggle with heterogeneous dynamics, where shared representations may cause knowledge interference, while mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures suffer from increasing expert redundancy. We propose SPEAR, a spectral-disentangled MoE neural operator with knowledge-guided expert aggregation for large-scale PDE pre-training. SPEAR decouples latent features into low- and high-frequency components, enabling shared modeling of transferable dynamics and specialized learning of PDE-specific patterns. To address expert redundancy, we design a knowledge-guided expert aggregation strategy that measures expert similarity from dataset-specific learned knowledge and routing preferences, enabling the identification and consolidation of similar experts. Experiments on twelve PDE datasets and multiple downstream benchmarks demonstrate superior performance in pre-training, fine-tuning, and transfer learning. Furthermore, our aggregation strategy reduces the number of experts by 50% while maintaining or improving prediction accuracy, achieving a balance between model efficiency and generalization for PDE foundation models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation of SPEAR. The upper shows the advantage of frequency decoupling for separating shared and PDE-specific dynamics. The lower highlights knowledge-guided expert merging over routing-based merging.
Figure 2: Overview architecture. The left panel shows the overall pipeline, the upper-right panel presents the FreqMix block, and the lower-right panel illustrates the high-frequency MoE module with low-rank experts.
Figure 3: Knowledge-guided expert merging based on bilinear projection and hierarchical clustering.
L2RE
Activated
FNO- ν
PDEBench CNS-( η,ζ ), DR, SWE
PDEArena
CFDBench
Model
Params
1e-5
1e-4
1e-3
1,0.1
1,0.01
Avg.(1)
0.1,0.1
0.1,0.01
Avg.(0.1)
DR
SWE
NS
NS-cond
-
Small model
FNO
0.5M
0.116
0.0922
0.0156
0.151
0.108
0.130
0.230
0.076
0.153
0.0321
0.0091
0.210
0.384
0.0274
UNet
25M
0.198
0.119
0.0245
0.334
0.291
0.313
0.569
0.357
0.463
0.0971
0.0521
0.102
0.337
0.209
FFNO
1.3M
0.121
0.0503
0.0099
0.0212
0.0520
0.0366
0.162
0.0452
0.104
0.0571
0.0116
0.0839
0.602
0.0071
GK-T
1.6M
0.134
0.0792
0.0098
0.0341
0.0377
0.0359
0.0274
0.0366
0.0320
0.0359
0.0069
0.0952
0.423
0.0105
GNOT
1.8M
0.157
0.0443
0.0125
0.0325
0.0420
0.0373
0.0228
0.0341
0.0285
0.0311
0.0068
0.172
0.325
0.0088
Table 1: The experiments are divided into four parts: standard small models, pre-training performance of foundation models, fine-tuning results, and model merging results. The evaluation metric is L2RE. The best result within each part is highlighted in bold , while the overall best result is emphasized in blue bold.
Model
Activated
FNO- ν
PDEBench
CFDBench
L2RE
Params
1e-5
1e-3
0.1,0.01
SWE
DR
-
FNO
10M
0.1910
0.0245
0.0859
11.0000
0.5300
0.0060
DPOT
7M
0.1070
0.0155
0.0168
0.0063
0.0577
0.0067
MoE-POT
17M
0.0682
0.0077
0.0105
0.0064
0.0411
0.0053
NESTOR
13M
0.0674
0.0076
0.0159
0.0045
0.0184
0.0091
Ours
10M
0.0582
0.0051
0.0165
0.0024
0.0145
0.0056
Table 2: Performance comparison of different methods under the new dataset split. The evaluation metric is L2RE. The best result within each column is highlighted in bold .
Model
Activated Params
Wave-Layer
Wave-Gauss
Turbulence
FNO
0.5M
-
-
0.193
MPP
7M
-
-
0.152
DPOT
7M
0.0095
0.0075
0.135
Poseidon
21M
0.29
0.29
-
MoE-POT
17M
0.05
0.06
0.0621
Ours
10M
0.0085
0.0066
0.0662
Table 3: Comparison of generalization and transfer ability.
Figure 4: Visualization of the predicted physical field at the final time step for Wave-Gauss.
Figure 5: Visualization of the predicted physical field at the final time step for Wave-Layer.
Figure 6: Visualization of the predicted physical variables at the final time step for 2D high-resolution turbulence.
Figure 7: Visualization of the key matrices used in Knowledge-Guided expert merging: (1) dataset similarity matrix SD , (2) dataset–expert preference matrix R , and (3) expert similarity matrix SE .
Num. of experts
1e-5
1e-3
0.1, 0.01
SWE
DR
CFDBench
Avg. L2
4
0.0666
0.0054
0.0162
0.0029
0.0193
0.0079
0.0197
8
0.0679
0.0049
0.0170
0.0029
0.0187
0.0083
0.0200
12
0.0690
0.0050
0.0146
0.0026
0.0190
0.0076
0.0196
16
0.0689
0.0048
0.0165
0.0040
0.0192
0.0077
0.0202
20
0.0700
0.0049
0.0170
0.0028
0.0197
0.0092
0.0206
24
0.0693
0.0049
0.0162
0.0031
0.0187
0.0082
0.0201
Table 4: The impact of the number of non-shared experts.
Method
1e-5
1e-3
0.1, 0.01
SWE
DR
CFDBench
Avg. L2
Promotion
Ours
0.0690
0.0050
0.0148
0.0027
0.0196
0.0077
0.0198
-
w/o MoE
0.0709
0.0054
0.0165
0.0031
0.0196
0.0079
0.0206
0.0008
w/o High-Freq
0.1070
0.0155
0.0168
0.0063
0.0577
0.0067
0.0350
0.0152
w/o Aux Loss
0.0694
0.0055
0.0154
0.0027
0.0185
0.0098
0.0202
0.0004
w/o Orth Loss
0.0692
0.0051
0.0168
0.0026
0.0189
0.0083
0.0202
0.0004
Table 5: Ablation experiments of our proposed model. “w/o” denotes the removal of the corresponding component.