The Lane-Emden Equation is a class of nonlinear differential equations commonly used to model phenomena in astrophysics and mathematical physics, such as stellar structure and thermal behavior in polytropic gas spheres. This study presents a novel hybrid framework that integrates Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) with boosting methods to enhance the accuracy and robustness of solutions for Lane-Emden type differential equations. Standard PINNs leverage physical laws encoded within the loss function, but their predictive performance can be constrained by optimization challenges and approximation errors. To address this, we introduce a post-processing boosting stage where the residual errors from the PINN prediction are modeled using some regression algorithms - including LightGBM, Random Forest, XGBoost, and Support Vector Regression (SVR). The outputs from these boosted models are aggregated to generate a corrected, high-fidelity prediction. The proposed methodology is systematically validated through quantitative metrics and comparative analysis against the standard PINN baseline. The results demonstrate that the boosted PINN framework significantly reduces prediction error, and improves generalization, offering a powerful and flexible approach for solving scientific and engineering problems governed by differential equations.
Figures & tables
Items
Options
Prob1
Prob2
Prob3
Prob4
Prob5
Prob6
Number of hidden layers
2, 3, 4
3
2
4
3
4
4
Number of neurons per layer
4, 8, 16, 32, 64
32
64
64
16
16
32
Activation Function
ReLU, Tanh, SiLU, Sigmoid, Elu, Softplus
Tanh
Sigmoid
SiLU
Softplus
Sigmoid
Sigmoid
Optimizer
Adam, Adagrad, SGD, RMSprop, AdamW, Adamax, NAdam
Adamax
Adamax
Adamax
Adam
AdamW
Adam
Learning rate
0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
Table 1: Hyperparameter Tuning for the Problems
Algorithm
Type
Role in Boosted PINN Framework
Random Forest (RF)
Ensemble (Bagging)
Captures non-linear patterns and interactions in PINN residuals through decorrelated decision trees, reducing variance and mitigating overfitting.
Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)
Ensemble (Boosting)
Sequentially corrects PINN errors with regularization, using second-order gradients for precise residual modeling while controlling model complexity.
Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM)
Ensemble (Boosting)
Efficiently models PINN residuals using histogram-based algorithms and leaf-wise growth, enabling fast training on error datasets with many sample points.
Support Vector Regression (SVR)
Kernel Method
Provides smooth interpolation of PINN error surfaces using ϵ -insensitive loss and kernel functions, effective for capturing global error trends.
Table 2: Summary of Machine Learning Algorithms Used for Boosting PINN
Figure 1: Boosted PINNs Flowchart
Figure 2: The Solutions and Absolute Error for Problem 1
Figure 3: The Mean Absolute Error and Absolute Error Distribution for Problem 1
x
PINN
MLP ANN [ 13 ]
ChNN [ 6 ]
PS-SQP [ 9 ]
GA-SQP [ 9 ]
0.1
4.17e-05
1.54e-04
2.00e-04
6.25e-05
9.28e-06
0.2
3.88e-05
4.22e-04
1.00e-04
1.06e-04
7.54e-05
0.3
3.37e-05
6.04e-04
4.60e-03
1.13e-04
3.38e-04
0.4
2.86e-05
6.03e-04
3.20e-03
8.25e-04
1.02e-03
0.5
2.74e-05
4.12e-04
7.60e-03
2.28e-03
2.41e-03
0.6
3.45e-05
9.20e-05
3.80e-03
4.77e-03
4.97e-03
Table 3: Absolute Error Comparison for Problem 1
x
PINN
LightGBM-Boosted
RF-Boosted
XGBoost-Boosted
SVR-Boosted
0.1
4.17e-05
1.31e-07
7.11e-08
8.40e-06
2.52e-05
0.2
3.88e-05
2.73e-07
5.29e-08
1.13e-05
2.81e-05
0.3
3.37e-05
2.61e-07
1.23e-07
1.64e-05
3.32e-05
0.4
2.86e-05
1.00e-07
6.58e-07
2.15e-05
3.83e-05
0.5
2.74e-05
7.06e-08
2.19e-07
2.28e-05
3.95e-05
0.6
3.45e-05
5.49e-07
2.46e-07
1.57e-05
3.25e-05
Table 4: Absolute Error Comparison of PINNs with the Boosted Algorithms - Problem 1
Figure 4: The Solutions and Absolute Error for Problem 2
Figure 5: The Mean Absolute Error and Absolute Error Distribution for Problem 2
x
PINNs
MLP ANN [ 13 ]
ChNN [ 6 ]
MC1 [ 10 ]
MC2 [ 10 ]
0.1
2.83e-04
2.58e-04
7.00e-03
1.99e-04
1.28e-05
0.2
2.45e-04
2.67e-04
1.30e-02
4.13e-04
6.16e-04
0.3
9.54e-06
7.00e-05
3.00e-03
6.53e-04
7.64e-04
0.4
2.11e-04
3.00e-05
1.34e-01
9.35e-04
2.19e-06
0.5
1.68e-04
3.00e-06
2.60e-03
1.28e-03
1.65e-03
0.6
7.26e-05
2.00e-05
2.10e-03
1.71e-03
3.36e-03
Table 5: Absolute Error Comparison for Problem 2
x
PINN
LightGBM-Boosted
RF-Boosted
XGBoost-Boosted
SVR-Boosted
0.1
2.83e-04
5.04e-05
1.14e-06
1.58e-04
2.44e-04
0.2
2.45e-04
5.21e-06
4.77e-06
1.21e-04
2.06e-04
0.3
9.54e-06
1.37e-05
8.38e-06
3.74e-05
4.82e-05
0.4
2.11e-04
2.46e-07
4.19e-07
1.12e-04
2.50e-04
0.5
1.68e-04
6.03e-06
5.78e-06
6.95e-05
2.07e-04
0.6
7.26e-05
2.84e-06
4.58e-06
2.65e-05
1.11e-04
Table 6: Absolute Error Comparison of PINNs with the Boosted Algorithms - Problem 2
Figure 6: The Solutions and Absolute Error for Problem 3
Figure 7: The Mean Absolute Error and Absolute Error Distribution for Problem 3
Input data
PINNs
ChNN [ 6 ]
MC1 [ 10 ]
MC2 [ 10 ]
0.1
4.98e-04
7.0e-04
2.22e-04
1.47e-04
0.2
5.46e-04
1.0e-03
4.96e-04
2.99e-04
0.3
6.51e-04
6.0e-04
8.19e-04
5.01e-04
0.4
7.86e-04
2.6e-03
1.19e-03
5.96e-04
0.5
9.49e-04
7.4e-03
1.60e-03
6.55e-04
0.6
1.14e-03
4.8e-03
2.07e-03
8.69e-04
Table 7: Absolute Error Comparison for Problem 3
x
PINN
LightGBM-Boosted
RF-Boosted
XGBoost-Boosted
SVR-Boosted
0.1
4.98e-04
3.77e-06
6.13e-07
1.41e-04
6.20e-04
0.2
5.46e-04
3.84e-06
7.85e-07
9.32e-05
5.71e-04
0.3
6.51e-04
6.05e-06
2.73e-06
2.57e-05
4.66e-04
0.4
7.86e-04
2.41e-08
4.90e-07
1.25e-05
3.31e-04
0.5
9.49e-04
9.04e-06
2.59e-06
8.34e-07
1.68e-04
0.6
1.14e-03
1.06e-05
7.63e-07
2.04e-05
2.86e-05
Table 8: Absolute Error Comparison of PINNs with the Boosted Algorithms - Problem 3
Figure 8: The Solutions and Absolute Error for Problem 4
Figure 9: The Mean Absolute Error and Absolute Error Distribution for Problem 4
x
PINNs
MLP ANN [ 13 ]
ChNN [ 25 ]
MC1 [ 10 ]
MC2 [ 10 ]
0.1
3.32e-05
1.1e-05
3.1e-04
2.49e-05
9.86e-06
0.2
5.12e-05
1.0e-06
5.9e-04
8.47e-05
2.22e-05
0.3
6.63e-05
3.3e-05
3.3e-04
1.58e-04
1.09e-05
0.4
3.18e-05
4.8e-05
1.2e-05
2.22e-04
1.50e-05
0.5
4.66e-05
2.3e-05
6.8e-04
2.57e-04
3.62e-05
0.6
7.51e-05
2.7e-05
2.8e-05
2.41e-04
6.62e-06
Table 9: Absolute Error Comparison for Problem 4
x
PINN
LightGBM-Boosted
RF-Boosted
XGBoost-Boosted
SVR-Boosted
0.1
3.32e-05
9.06e-06
4.41e-08
5.66e-06
5.38e-05
0.2
5.12e-05
2.24e-07
1.30e-06
2.37e-05
7.18e-05
0.3
6.63e-05
9.21e-07
9.96e-07
3.87e-05
8.69e-05
0.4
3.18e-05
2.34e-07
1.71e-07
4.30e-06
5.25e-05
0.5
4.66e-05
2.30e-06
2.89e-08
1.91e-05
6.72e-05
0.6
7.51e-05
7.63e-07
1.23e-06
4.76e-05
9.57e-05
Table 10: Absolute Error Comparison of PINNs with the Boosted Algorithms - Problem 4
Figure 10: The Solutions and Absolute Error for Problem 5
Figure 11: The Mean Absolute Error and Absolute Error Distribution for Problem 5
Input data
PINNs
ChNN [ 25 ]
MC1 [ 10 ]
MC2 [ 10 ]
LWM [ 27 ]
0.1
1.26e-03
1.00e-06
1.95e-04
8.20e-05
4.89e-06
0.2
1.18e-03
1.00e-05
3.78e-04
9.49e-05
6.84e-06
0.3
1.19e-03
1.00e-06
5.33e-04
1.35e-04
8.03e-07
0.4
1.34e-03
9.90e-05
6.51e-04
1.82e-04
8.38e-06
0.5
1.57e-03
1.00e-04
7.25e-04
2.12e-04
1.28e-05
0.6
1.71e-03
8.70e-07
7.55e-04
2.47e-04
5.32e-05
Table 11: Absolute Error Comparison for Problem 5
x
PINN
LightGBM-Boosted
RF-Boosted
XGBoost-Boosted
SVR-Boosted
0.1
1.26e-03
2.47e-05
3.96e-08
2.81e-05
6.61e-05
0.2
1.18e-03
1.06e-06
2.14e-06
1.04e-04
1.42e-04
0.3
1.19e-03
2.80e-06
4.41e-06
9.29e-05
1.30e-04
0.4
1.34e-03
9.98e-06
1.33e-06
3.83e-05
1.86e-05
0.5
1.57e-03
3.34e-07
6.09e-06
9.73e-05
2.40e-04
0.6
1.71e-03
1.92e-06
6.81e-06
2.38e-04
3.81e-04
Table 12: Absolute Error Comparison of PINNs with the Boosted Algorithms - Problem 5
Figure 12: The Solutions and Absolute Error for Problem 6
Figure 13: The Mean Absolute Error and Absolute Error Distribution for Problem 1
Input data
PINNs
MC1 [ 10 ]
MC2 [ 10 ]
LWM [ 27 ]
0.1
1.80e-05
3.90e-04
2.04e-04
1.57e-04
0.2
5.15e-05
7.58e-04
4.59e-04
7.73e-05
0.3
6.23e-06
1.07e-03
7.26e-04
1.26e-04
0.4
1.06e-05
1.33e-03
9.84e-04
4.61e-05
0.5
4.10e-05
1.53e-03
1.21e-03
2.03e-04
0.6
4.59e-06
1.66e-03
1.31e-03
3.85e-04
Table 13: Absolute Error Comparison for Problem 6
x
PINN
LightGBM-Boosted
RF-Boosted
XGBoost-Boosted
SVR-Boosted
0.1
1.80e-05
6.39e-06
6.39e-07
8.64e-07
1.76e-06
0.2
5.15e-05
2.05e-06
1.12e-06
3.43e-05
3.17e-05
0.3
6.23e-06
1.60e-06
7.89e-07
1.10e-05
1.36e-05
0.4
1.06e-05
6.28e-07
5.67e-07
6.56e-06
9.16e-06
0.5
4.10e-05
1.04e-06
1.28e-06
2.38e-05
2.12e-05
0.6
4.59e-06
5.78e-07
3.68e-07
2.18e-05
2.44e-05
Table 14: Absolute Error Comparison of PINNs with the Boosted Algorithms - Problem 6
Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) solve differential equations by minimizing the residual of a nonlinear operator over a neural parameterization of the solution. However, monolithic PINNs often suffer from ill-conditioning, spectral bias, and optimization instability. We introduce a variational boosting framework in which solutions are constructed additively in function space. Each stage trains a weak learner whose converged correction satisfies a local orthogonality condition, equivalent to a projected functional gradient descent step onto the tangent space of the network's function manifold. Because each correction network is deliberately small, the restricted minimization admits full Newton or conjugate gradient updates, which are typically infeasible in large PINNs. The resulting method separates global nonlinear refinement into a sequence of well-conditioned subproblems while preserving the full variational structure of the operator. This framework provides a geometric interpretation of multi-stage PINNs as projected functional gradient descent and enables stable second-order optimization for nonlinear differential equations.
Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) have been recognized as a mesh-free alternative to solve partial differential equations where physics information is incorporated. However, in dealing with problems characterized by high stiffness or shock-dominated dynamics, traditional PINNs have been found to have limitations, including unbalanced training and inaccuracy in solution, even with small physics residuals. In this research, we seek to address these limitations using the viscous Burgers' equation with low viscosity and the Allen-Cahn equation as test problems. In addressing unbalanced training, we have developed a new adaptive loss balancing scheme using smoothed gradient norms to ensure satisfaction of initial and boundary conditions. Further, to address inaccuracy in the solution, we have developed an adaptive residual-based collocation scheme to improve the accuracy of solutions in the regions with high physics residuals. The proposed new approach significantly improves solution accuracy with consistent satisfaction of physics residuals. For instance, in the case of Burgers' equation, the relative L2 error is reduced by about 44 percent compared to traditional PINNs, while for the Allen-Cahn equation, the relative L2 error is reduced by approximately 70 percent. Additionally, we show the trustworthy solution comparison of the proposed method using a robust finite difference solver.
We propose a linearized Physics-Informed Neural Network (lPINN), a reduced-order neural basis method for forward and inverse differential equations. In an offline stage, lPINN learns operator-compatible continuous neural basis functions from an ensemble of numerical solutions. The basis functions are differentiable through automatic differentiation and are pretrained using solution data together with either derivative information or physics residuals. For each new problem instance, the basis functions are frozen and the solution is obtained by minimizing the governing-equation residual together with applicable initial, boundary, regularization, and observational terms. Unlike surrogate and operator-learning methods, the training data define the trial space offline, while the instance-specific solution is computed online by enforcing the governing physics. Relative to vanilla PINNs, lPINN pretrains the nonlinear hidden-layer representation offline and performs online inference only in the final linear layer. We evaluate lPINN on forward and inverse problems for the advection-diffusion equation, Burgers' equation, and the nonlinear pendulum equation. Compared with vanilla PINNs, lPINN achieves lower solution and parameter errors while reducing online inference times by approximately one to more than three orders of magnitude, with the largest gains generally observed for limited residual or measurement data. Cross-resolution experiments show that the learned continuous representation can be evaluated on finer meshes without retraining and with nearly unchanged accuracy.
Wenhao Chen, Alexandre M. Tartakovsky
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801, USA · Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA 99352, USA