Partial differential equation (PDE) surrogate modeling often relies on either dense observations or access to governing equations/physics constraints. In practice, observations can be sparse and partial, and the underlying physics may be partially specified or unavailable. We introduce SBNO, an equation-free paired-data diffusion bridge matching framework that learns conditional operators for both forward and inverse PDE problems under partial observations. SBNO uses diffusion Schrödinger bridge matching to learn a pair of time-dependent drifts from a mask-aware endpoint coupling that preserves empirical input-solution pairing during training and supports both PDE-task directions within a single framework. At inference time, SBNO produces a deterministic point reconstruction by integrating the probability-flow ODE constructed from the learned drift pair, without inference-time observation or PDE guidance-weight tuning. On five PDE benchmarks with 5% observations, SBNO achieves superior or comparable accuracy to baselines while demonstrating lower test-instance error dispersion. Furthermore, SBNO is at least 9.7× faster and reduces GPU memory by at least 4.3× compared to guided-diffusion baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Reconstruction error visualization . We compare our method against FunDPS, a guided-diffusion baseline, and GNOT, a deterministic baseline. All error maps are visualized using a shared color scale for fair comparison, where lower values indicate better reconstruction accuracy.
Figure 2: Overview of SBNO. (a) Training. From paired PDE samples (a,u) and a random observation mask ms , SBNO lifts each partially observed field by concatenating masked values and the binary mask. It constructs a unified endpoint coupling that mixes forward and inverse pairs while preserving empirical input-solution pairing. Forward/backward drift networks are trained with diffusion Schrödinger bridge matching losses. (b) Inference. Given partial observations and their mask, SBNO produces a deterministic reconstruction of the target field using the probability-flow ODE constructed from the learned drift pair, with the same trained model supporting both PDE tasks without observation or PDE guidance-weight tuning.
Capability
SBNO (ours)
FunDPS & DiffusionPDE
FNOPE
GNOT
FNO
Observation conditioning
mask-aware
only observation
only observation
only observation
mask-aware
Unified PDE-task training
yes
yes
no
no
no
Inference-time hyperparameters
not required
required
not required
not required
not required
PDE information
equation-free
PDE guidance
equation-free
equation-free
equation-free
Inference type
both possible
stochastic
stochastic
deterministic
deterministic
Table 1: Qualitative comparison of SBNO and the baseline configurations evaluated in this study.
Dataset
Problem
SBNO (Ours)
FunDPS
DiffusionPDE
FNOPE
GNOT
FNO
Darcy flow
Forward
0.0359 ± 0.0133
0.0461 ± 0.0207
0.0552 ± 0.0849
0.2219 ± 0.0893
0.0510 ± 0.0148
0.0582 ± 0.0135
Inverse
0.0269 ± 0.0125
0.0835 ± 0.0380
0.0499 ± 0.0338
0.2241 ± 0.1110
0.0779 ± 0.0367
0.0946 ± 0.0409
Poisson
Forward
0.0424 ± 0.0219
0.0775 ± 0.0473
0.0986 ± 0.1696
0.7849 ± 0.4061
0.0929 ± 0.0428
0.1458 ± 0.0518
Inverse
0.2167 ± 0.0345
0.3664 ± 0.1232
0.2015 ± 0.0792
0.8423 ± 0.2244
0.3585 ± 0.0910
0.3912 ± 0.0991
Helmholtz
Forward
0.0519 ± 0.0315
0.0563 ± 0.0310
0.0902 ± 0.1412
0.7388 ± 0.3684
0.0926 ± 0.0393
0.2191 ± 0.0854
Inverse
0.2310 ± 0.0501
0.2550 ± 0.0740
0.1893 ± 0.2557
0.7111 ± 0.2000
0.3728 ± 0.0865
0.4178 ± 0.0947
Table 2: The evaluation results are reported on five benchmark datasets. Each performance metric is expressed as the “mean ± std” of the relative L2 error across test samples. For clarity, the best values in each column are highlighted in bold , while the second-best values are marked with underline .
Method
Time per Sample (sec)
Peak Mem (MB)
DiffusionPDE
46.65
3,846.7
FunDPS
2.71
5,428.8
SBNO (ours)
0.28
886.0
Table 3: Cost comparison between diffusion-based models. We report wall-clock time per sample and peak GPU memory. The best values are highlighted in bold .
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Visualizations of samples with data quality issue.
Guidance Weight ζ
Darcy Flow
Poisson
Helmholtz
Nonbounded Navier-Stokes
Gray-Scott
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
500
0.0480
0.2567
0.1649
0.4540
0.1484
0.2249
0.0624
0.1102
0.1032
0.0947
1,000
0.0374
0.1913
0.0931
0.3827
0.0725
0.2017
0.0427
0.1043
0.0920
0.0837
5,000
0.0371
0.1083
0.0775
0.2724
0.0519
0.2598
0.0358
0.2395
0.0718
0.0640
10,000
0.0449
0.0895
0.0993
0.2416
0.0499
0.4516
0.0373
0.5372
0.0662
0.0599
15,000
0.0557
0.0821
0.1324
0.2272
0.0495
0.7019
0.0426
0.4976
0.0677
0.0616
Appendix
Table 4: Sensitivity of FunDPS to the inference-time guidance weight ζ under sparse observations. We report the relative ℓ2 error for both forward and inverse tasks for five PDE benchmarks. The symbol “div” indicates that the inference procedure fails to converge.
Figure 4: FunDPS sensitivity to guidance weight ζ in the forward and inverse problem. Divergent cases are marked with × .
Dataset
Problem
SBNO (Ours)
FunDPS fixed
FunDPS
DiffusionPDE
FNOPE
GNOT
FNO
Darcy flow
Forward
0.0359 ± 0.0133
0.0442 ± 0.0248
0.0461 ± 0.0207
0.0552 ± 0.0849
0.2219 ± 0.0893
0.0510 ± 0.0148
0.0582 ± 0.0135
Inverse
0.0269 ± 0.0125
0.0742 ± 0.0348
0.0835 ± 0.0380
0.0499 ± 0.0338
0.2241 ± 0.1110
0.0779 ± 0.0367
0.0946 ± 0.0409
Poisson
Forward
0.0424 ± 0.0219
0.0775 ± 0.0420
0.0775 ± 0.0473
0.0986 ± 0.1696
0.7849 ± 0.4061
0.0929 ± 0.0428
0.1458 ± 0.0518
Inverse
0.2167 ± 0.0345
0.2193 ± 0.0609
0.3664 ± 0.1232
0.2015 ± 0.0792
0.8423 ± 0.2244
0.3585 ± 0.0910
0.3912 ± 0.0991
Helmholtz
Forward
0.0519 ± 0.0315
0.0495 ± 0.0266
0.0563 ± 0.0310
0.0902 ± 0.1412
0.7388 ± 0.3684
0.0926 ± 0.0393
0.2191 ± 0.0854
Inverse
0.2310 ± 0.0501
0.2017 ± 0.0532
0.2550 ± 0.0740
0.1893 ± 0.2557
0.7111 ± 0.2000
0.3728 ± 0.0865
0.4178 ± 0.0947
Appendix
Table 5: The evaluation results are reported on five benchmark datasets. Each performance metric is expressed as the “mean ± standard deviation” of the relative L2 error across test set samples. For clarity, the best mean and best standard deviation in each column are highlighted in bold , while the second-best values are marked with underline .
Problem
Forward problem
Inverse problem
mean
std
mean
std
Darcy Flow
0.0359 ± 0.000708
0.0133 ± 0.000627
0.0269 ± 0.000297
0.0125 ± 0.000185
Poisson
0.0424 ± 0.000595
0.0219 ± 0.000712
0.2167 ± 0.002005
0.0345 ± 0.001032
Helmholtz
0.0519 ± 0.001751
0.0315 ± 0.002282
0.2310 ± 0.003499
0.0501 ± 0.002147
Nonbounded Navier-Stokes
0.0368 ± 0.000786
0.0086 ± 0.000206
0.1097 ± 0.000403
0.0167 ± 0.000080
Gray-Scott
0.0393 ± 0.001163
0.0193 ± 0.000897
0.0382 ± 0.001187
0.0167 ± 0.000884
Appendix
Table 6: Sensitivity of SBNO to inference randomness over five different seeds. For each seed, we compute the test-set mean and standard deviation of the relative L2 error. Each entry reports the average and standard deviation of the corresponding metric across seeds.
Method
Darcy forward
Darcy inverse
Helmholtz forward
Helmholtz inverse
DiffusionPDE
2.1465 ± 2.4595
1.2648 ± 0.1078
8.9174 ± 11.6318
0.4139 ± 0.2540
FunDPS
11.1638 ± 1.7811
1.3643 ± 0.0712
4.2907 ± 1.7299
0.5651 ± 0.1460
SBNO
1.6347 ± 0.1468
1.1543 ± 0.0621
1.9629 ± 1.1171
0.3278 ± 0.1533
Appendix
Table 7: High-frequency relative spectral error under 5% observations. Values are mean ± standard deviation across test instances; lower is better.
Method
Darcy forward
Darcy inverse
Helmholtz forward
Helmholtz inverse
DiffusionPDE
10.6676 ± 25.2757
0.9310 ± 0.3236
213.7049 ± 530.5397
0.9117 ± 0.2235
FunDPS
127.4999 ± 41.0276
1.1889 ± 0.1975
22.2814 ± 22.8030
0.9577 ± 0.2244
SBNO
2.6015 ± 0.5581
0.7429 ± 0.1215
6.2776 ± 8.0286
0.9932 ± 0.5402
Appendix
Table 8: High-frequency energy ratios under 5% observations. Values are mean ± standard deviation across test instances. A ratio of one indicates matching energy when the normalization floor is inactive; the ratios should be interpreted together with spectral error.
Problem
Mask-aware forward
No-mask forward
Mask-aware inverse
No-mask inverse
Darcy Flow
0.0359 ± 0.0133
0.0579 ± 0.0172
0.0269 ± 0.0125
0.0297 ± 0.0138
Poisson
0.0424 ± 0.0219
0.3339 ± 0.1829
0.2167 ± 0.0345
0.3950 ± 0.1254
Helmholtz
0.0519 ± 0.0315
0.2411 ± 0.1428
0.2310 ± 0.0501
0.3334 ± 0.1149
Nonbounded Navier-Stokes
0.0368 ± 0.0086
0.1471 ± 0.0238
0.1097 ± 0.0167
0.2267 ± 0.0243
Gray-Scott
0.0393 ± 0.0193
0.0448 ± 0.0248
0.0382 ± 0.0167
0.0385 ± 0.0210
Appendix
Table 9: Mask-channel ablation on all five benchmark datasets under 5% observations. Values are mean ± standard deviation of relative L2 error across test instances. For Gray–Scott, entries average the corresponding statistics of the two reconstructed channels.
Training coupling
Forward error
Inverse error
Unified mixture
0.0359 ± 0.0133
0.0269 ± 0.0125
Forward-task coupling only
0.0315 ± 0.0073
0.5063 ± 0.0525
Inverse-task coupling only
0.5420 ± 0.0269
0.0150 ± 0.0072
Appendix
Table 10: Mask-channel ablation on all five benchmark datasets under 5% observations. Values are mean ± standard deviation of relative L2 error across test instances. For Gray–Scott, entries average the corresponding statistics of the two reconstructed channels.
Forward-drift training coupling
Inference
Forward error
Unified mixture
Forward-drift-only SDE
0.0263 ± 0.0064
Forward-task coupling only
Forward-drift-only SDE
0.0174 ± 0.0056
Appendix
Table 11: Mask-channel ablation on all five benchmark datasets under 5% observations. Values are mean ± standard deviation of relative L2 error across test instances. For Gray–Scott, entries average the corresponding statistics of the two reconstructed channels.
Dataset
Problem
SBNO (Ours)
FunDPS
DiffusionPDE
FNOPE
GNOT
FNO
Korteweg –De Vries
Forward
0.2858 ± 0.0650
1.5024 ± 0.2236
0.2177 ± 0.2017
0.8498 ± 0.0446
1.1628 ± 0.0692
0.5356 ± 0.0348
Inverse
0.2866 ± 0.1005
1.5401 ± 0.2491
0.1765 ± 0.0791
0.9399 ± 0.0571
1.1798 ± 0.0739
0.7483 ± 0.0202
Kuramoto– Sivashinsky
Forward
0.3236 ± 0.0295
1.2990 ± 0.0754
0.4517 ± 0.0992
1.0500 ± 0.0711
1.0707 ± 0.0579
0.6808 ± 0.0359
Inverse
0.3674 ± 0.0283
1.2962 ± 0.0733
0.3973 ± 0.0584
1.0451 ± 0.0716
1.0660 ± 0.0568
0.6727 ± 0.0389
Kolmogorov Flow
Forward
0.5322 ± 0.0978
1.2445 ± 0.0560
0.5551 ± 0.1133
0.6180 ± 0.0882
0.9275 ± 0.0860
0.6211 ± 0.0764
Inverse
0.4849 ± 0.0810
1.2329 ± 0.0525
0.5739 ± 0.2634
0.5687 ± 0.0632
0.9071 ± 0.0814
0.6039 ± 0.0466
Appendix
Table 12: Evaluation results on three additional APEBench datasets. Each performance metric is reported as the “mean ± standard deviation” of the relative L2 error across test samples. For clarity, the best mean and best standard deviation in each row are highlighted in bold , while the second-best values are marked with underline .
Category
Metric
Darcy Flow
Poisson
Helmholtz
Nonbounded Navier-Stokes
Gray-Scott
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Sample mean reconstruction
Rel L2 error mean
0.0263
0.1296
0.0519
0.1271
0.0539
0.1362
0.0717
0.1342
0.0254
0.0272
Rel L2 error std
0.0064
0.0334
0.0210
0.0361
0.0297
0.0362
0.0072
0.0182
0.0119
0.0162
Abs L1 error mean
0.0001
0.2217
0.0001
0.0257
0.0002
0.0260
0.0142
0.0267
0.0089
0.0037
Uncertainty magnitude
Global mean std
0.0002
0.2016
0.0001
0.0144
0.0001
0.0131
0.0128
0.0172
0.0116
0.0060
Global mean var
0.0000
0.6258
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
Appendix
Table 13: Uncertainty-quantification results of SBNO using stochastic posterior sampling. For each dataset and for both forward and inverse problems, we draw 60 stochastic bridge samples per test case and report metrics for sample-mean reconstruction, uncertainty magnitude, calibration and sharpness, and the relation between predictive error and estimated uncertainty.
Figure 18
Figure 5: Representative uncertainty-quantification example of SBNO under partial observations using stochastic posterior sampling. We draw 60 stochastic bridge samples and visualize the ground truth, sample mean, absolute error of the sample mean, sample standard deviation, 90% posterior interval width, and the corresponding 90% empirical coverage mask. The sample mean summarizes the reconstruction, while the posterior spread highlights spatial regions associated with larger predictive uncertainty.
Figure 6: Comparison of ODE and SDE inference on representative Darcy-flow and nonbounded Navier–Stokes forward cases under 5% observations. For each case, we show the ground truth, deterministic ODE reconstruction, one stochastic SDE sample, and the mean of 60 SDE samples. All predictions use the same observation mask, and panels within each case share a color scale. The individual SDE sample is shown separately from the sample-mean reconstruction.
Noise std
Problem
SBNO (Ours)
FunDPS
DiffusionPDE
GNOT
0.1
Forward
0.0359
0.0461
0.0371
0.0510
Inverse
0.0269
0.0834
0.0743
0.1031
0.5
Forward
0.0359
0.0461
0.0372
0.1709
Inverse
0.0274
0.0837
0.0749
0.4092
1.0
Forward
0.0358
0.0461
0.0373
0.2657
Inverse
0.0291
0.0838
0.0766
0.4764
Appendix
Table 14: Evaluation results with Gaussian noise added to partial observations. Noise std denotes the standard deviation of the Gaussian noise. For clarity, the best mean in each column is highlighted in bold , while the second-best values are marked with underline .
Step number
32
64
96
128
dopri
Poisson Inverse
0.2167
0.2074
0.2072
0.2073
0.2166
Helmholtz Inverse
0.2310
0.2220
0.2243
0.2249
0.2310
Time per Sample(sec)
0.28
0.56
0.83
1.10
0.57
Appendix
Table 15: Reconstruction performance under different ODE solver configurations on the challenging inverse tasks where SBNO did not outperform DiffusionPDE in the main text, together with the corresponding per-sample inference time. We increase the number of RK4 integration steps and additionally evaluate an adaptive DOPRI solver to assess whether improved numerical integration can close the remaining performance gap.
Observation ratio
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0.5%
Forward
0.0359
0.0402
0.0749
0.1226
0.2212
0.2727
Inverse
0.0269
0.0498
0.0865
0.2107
0.2924
0.3362
Appendix
Table 16: Evaluation results with varying ratios of partial observations. The observation ratio denotes the proportion of points in the full grid that are provided as partial observations for evaluation.
Observation ratio
10%
8%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0.5%
Forward
0.0664
0.0703
0.0836
0.0880
0.0954
0.1112
0.1435
0.1790
Inverse
0.0442
0.0437
0.0474
0.0511
0.0595
0.0773
0.1240
0.1710
Appendix
Table 17: Evaluation results with varying ratios of partial observations. The observation ratio denotes the proportion of points in the full grid that are provided as partial observations for evaluation.
Dataset
Problem
SBNO
SBNO (loop)
Darcy flow
Forward
0.0359 ± 0.0133
0.0369 ± 0.0132
Inverse
0.0269 ± 0.0128
0.0531 ± 0.0216
Helmholtz
Forward
0.0519 ± 0.0315
0.1886 ± 0.1069
Inverse
0.2310 ± 0.0501
0.2506 ± 0.0722
Appendix
Table 18: Evaluation results for the closed-loop experiment, where inference is run again in the opposite direction using the model prediction from the first pass as the new partial observation. For forward inference, the prediction obtained from backward inference is used as the partial input observation. Conversely, for backward inference, the prediction obtained from forward inference is used as the partial solution observation. The resulting performance is reported as “SBNO (loop).”
Figure 7: Representative closed-loop visualization . We show the original SBNO predictions and the reconstructions obtained after reusing those predictions as partial observations for inference in the opposite direction.
Models
Hyperparameter
Darcy Flow
Poisson
Helmholtz
Nonbounded Navier-Stokes
Gray-Scott
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Forward
Inverse
Ours
learning rate
0.0001
ODE solver step
32
Sigma min
0.2
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Sigma max
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.45
0.3
FunDPS multi-res
Observation guidance
1,000
25,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
10,000
Appendix
Table 19: Best hyperparameters for each model used in the main experiments.
Recovering complete physical fields from sparse observations is challenging because the measurements may not uniquely determine the underlying state. Diffusion-based PDE solvers address this problem through iterative sampling whereas neural operators provide deterministic one-pass predictions. We propose SCOPE (Sparse-Context Observability-aware Predictive Embeddings) to recover complete PDE fields from sparse observations by coupling full-field latent prediction with physical reconstruction. A shared decoder reconstructs fields from both predicted and complete-view representations so that representation learning is guided by both physical recovery and latent matching. We derive a quadratic risk decomposition at fixed teacher-decoder pairs showing why optimal latent prediction need not yield optimal field reconstruction. We also establish sufficient conditions for decoder improvements on complete inputs to transfer to recovery from partial observations. Experiments across five PDE settings show that SCOPE outperforms mask-aware neural operators on all ten forward and inverse tasks and achieves lower errors than those reported for diffusion-based solvers including DiffusionPDE and FunDPS. Decoder-only adaptation further improves recovery without retraining the backbone while retaining deterministic single-pass inference.
Ruichen Xu, Siyao Wang, Fang Wan +8
Stony Brook University · University of California, Davis · Independent Research +3
Data assimilation (DA) for systems governed by partial differential equations (PDE) aims to reconstruct full spatiotemporal fields from sparse high-fidelity (HF) observations while respecting physical constraints. While full-grid low-fidelity (LF) simulations provide informative priors in multi-fidelity settings, recovering an HF field consistent with both sparse observations and the governing PDE typically requires per-instance test-time optimization, which becomes a major bottleneck in time-critical applications. To alleviate this, amortized reconstruction using generative models has recently been proposed; however, such approaches rely on full-field HF supervision during training, which is often impractical in real-world settings. From a more realistic perspective, we propose the Physics-Informed Conditional Schrödinger Bridge (PICSB), which transports an informative LF prior toward an observation-conditioned HF posterior without any additional inference-time guidance. To enable learning without HF endpoints, PICSB employs an iterative surrogate-endpoint refresh scheme, and directly incorporates PDE residuals into the training objective while enforcing observations via hard conditioning throughout sampling. Experiments on fluid PDE benchmarks demonstrate that PICSB enables extremely fast spatiotemporal field reconstruction while maintaining competitive accuracy under sparse HF supervision.
Dohyun Bu, Chanho Kim, Seokun Choi +1
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Repulic of Korea · Department of Mathematical Sciences, KAIST, Daejeon, Repulic of Korea
Guided sampling with sparse observations and PDE residuals has recently been combined with neural operator priors to solve partial differential equations in function space, their natural setting. We pair such a prior with pseudo-bootstrap sequential Monte Carlo (pBS SMC), a guided sampling framework that accommodates proposals without tractable densities, and introduce a new proposal by adapting the DPM++ algorithm to the guidance setting. Across five benchmark PDE systems this proposal attains the best error--time trade-off at every step count tested, and wrapping it in pBS gives the lowest error on most inverse-problem settings, with the largest gains when few sampling steps are used.
Andrew Millard, Joshua Murphy, Zheng Zhao
Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Sweden. · Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.