Organizations: SandGold AI Research, Guangzhou, China · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Westlake University, Hangzhou, China · Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China
Reconstructing physical dynamics from fixed sparse sensors and missing frames is a fundamental challenge in scientific research. Sparsity leaves large regions of the field unconstrained, making the inverse problem ill-posed: a model may fit the observed sensors while producing inaccurate off-sensor structures or unreliable predictions between support frames. To this end, we propose PhysFTM---a physics-informed functional Tucker model that parameterizes the Tucker mode factors in reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs) and incorporates PDE constraints through finite-difference residuals evaluated at off-sensor collocation points. These residuals provide additional physical information in regions without direct observational supervision. PhysFTM first reconstructs continuous spatial fields at support frames via an alternating minimization scheme, optimizing the Tucker core tensor and the RKHS-based factors separately. To enable missing-frame reconstruction, PhysFTM constructs a continuous trajectory in Tucker-core space, which is decoded by the learned spatial RKHS-FTM representation to recover the full spatiotemporal field. Experiments on Allen--Cahn, Navier--Stokes, three-dimensional Heat equations, and a three-dimensional gridded Copernicus ocean reanalysis demonstrate accurate 2D/3D reconstruction under two missing-frame protocols. Code is available at https://github.com/liusirzzz/PhysFTM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overall framework of PhysFTM. PhysFTM reconstructs sparse grid-based sensor observations by learning an RKHS-regularized Functional Tucker spatial decoder constrained by observation loss and finite-difference PDE residuals. The inferred Tucker cores are then modeled as a continuous trajectory in core space and decoded back to the physical domain to obtain the reconstructed spatiotemporal field.
Method
Random-drop-half
Temporal-interval-missing
S-sup
Off-sup
S-miss
Off-miss
S-sup
Off-sup
S-miss
Off-miss
AC2D
SDIFT
0.35804
0.38080
0.38030
0.38151
0.35699
0.36199
0.39071
0.39259
LRTFR
0.31170
0.32220
0.31340
0.32038
0.31006
0.31676
0.32059
0.32781
PhysFTM
0.01735
0.08710
0.05035
0.09988
0.01633
0.09397
0.03953
0.07924
RecFNO
0.01848
0.45283
0.02178
0.45523
0.01811
0.45875
0.02116
0.43680
Table 1: Reconstruction RMSE on four datasets at spatial sensor ratio s=0.03 . The two column groups report the four disjoint evaluation subsets, defined by sensor/off-sensor locations and support/missing frames, under random-drop-half and temporal-interval-missing. Lower is better. For Heat3D and Ocean3D, the PhysFTM interval-missing results use the random-drop-half-trained temporal checkpoint. ( Bold : best, Underline : second best)
Protocol
Method
Off-miss
Divergence
Vort. RMSE
Spectrum
Random
SDIFT
0.510274
0.352407
0.916343
0.877309
LRTFR
0.145757
0.459044
0.237923
0.049954
PhysFTM
0.064976
0.134170
0.109304
0.033599
RecFNO
0.104413
0.459014
0.118608
0.067430
SIREN-MLP
0.244405
1.887604
0.623477
0.408029
PINNs
0.340554
0.120243
0.586433
0.398297
Table 2: NS2D missing-frame reconstruction and complementary physical diagnostics at s=0.03 . Divergence, vorticity, and spectrum errors are evaluated on full grids of missing frames; Off-miss is evaluated at off-sensor locations in missing frames. Lower is better.
Figure 2: Qualitative comparisons on AC2D (top) at s=0.03 and the NS2D vorticity channel (bottom) at s=0.15 . The upper row of each block shows the sparse input and predictions from LRTFR, SDIFT, RecFNO, PINNs, and PhysFTM; the lower row shows the ground truth and the corresponding absolute-error maps.
Data
Variant
PDE
Full
Sensor
Off-sensor
AC2D
PhysFTM
0.053250
0.088078
0.015185
0.089395
w/o physics
0.064986
0.091135
0.010852
0.092520
w/o RKHS reg.
0.048491
0.096622
0.027551
0.097985
solve-only
1.155543
0.171035
0.008657
0.173653
gradient-only
1.76×10−5
0.352111
0.351441
0.352132
NS2D
PhysFTM
0.662575
0.060270
0.004189
0.061196
Table 3: Component and block-update-strategy ablation on AC2D and NS2D at s=0.03 , without temporal missingness. RMSEs use all evaluated frames; PDE is evaluated at disjoint held-out off-sensor points and centered-stencil-valid internal times.
Dataset
s
Learned
Linear
Cubic
AC2D
0.01
0.180029
0.189510
0.189556
AC2D
0.03
0.085552
0.090391
0.090388
NS2D
0.01
0.130469
0.137667
0.137453
NS2D
0.03
0.055546
0.064605
0.063790
Table 4: RMSE at non-grid-aligned times within the continuous support-frame time range, using ground truth directly recorded by the PDE solver. “Learned” is the gated ODE-RNN correction to cubic Hermite interpolation in Tucker-core space.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Test input
Training / fitting
Supervision / equation use
Test optimization
Spatial scope
Time interface / selection
SDIFT
Sparse spatiotemporal observations
Cross-trajectory diffusion training
Dense training trajectories; no test missing-frame targets
Observations, missing-frame targets, and equation loss where enabled
Support-core CG solve
2D/3D
Native-grid and AC/NS in-range non-grid-aligned reconstruction; spatial: training dense RMSE; temporal: validation missing-frame relative ℓ2
Appendix
Table 5: Task-level comparison protocols. “Native” denotes prescribed dataset timestamps; “coordinate” denotes direct coordinate evaluation. Baseline budgets and checkpoint selection follow their executed run configurations.
Panel A: off-sensor reconstruction in support frames
Method
AC2D
NS2D
RMSE
SSIM
PDE
RMSE
SSIM
PDE
Linear interp.
0.1275
0.6379
0.5877
0.0897
0.9322
1.1605
Cubic interp.
0.1051
0.7632
0.7174
0.0653
0.9656
0.8339
SIREN-MLP
0.2907
0.1747
1.1703
0.2155
0.5836
2.1245
MLP-FTM
0.1049
0.7515
0.2282
0.0859
0.9116
4.0426
Appendix
Table 6: Additional spatial analysis at s=0.03 . Panel A evaluates reconstruction at off-sensor locations in support frames. Panel B varies the equation-collocation placement; the complete model uses off-sensor collocation. ( Bold : best, Underline : second best)
Diagnostic
Missing-frame/spatial reduction
Trajectory reduction
Divergence error
Global RMS over all missing frames and grid points
Included in the same global pool
Vorticity RMSE
Global RMSE over all missing frames and grid points
Included in the same global pool
Spectrum error
Per-frame relative L2 , then missing-frame mean
Mean/std of trajectory means
Appendix
Table 7: Aggregation rules for missing-frame physical diagnostics.
Protocol
s
Method
Off-miss
Divergence
Vort. RMSE
Spectrum
Random
0.01
SDIFT
0.509261
0.307569
0.876079
0.865337
LRTFR
0.170679
0.475408
0.237857
0.048102
PhysFTM
0.130659
0.274083
0.232358
0.104305
RecFNO
0.413223
0.514580
0.396548
0.161395
SIREN-MLP
0.244360
1.886754
0.623300
0.409266
PINNs
0.341072
0.120243
0.586433
0.402015
Appendix
Table 8: Complete NS2D missing-frame diagnostics across spatial sensor ratios. Lower is better.( Bold : best, Underline : second best)
Dataset
Split
Stored tensor
Channels
Domain and time span
AC2D
160/20/20
200×201×256×256
scalar u
[0,1)2 , t∈[0,2]
NS2D
640/80/80
800×201×128×128×3
(u,v,ω)
[0,1)2 , t∈[0,20]
Heat3D
160/20/20
200×50×64×64×64×1
temperature u
[0,1]3 , t∈[0,4]
Ocean3D
80/10/10
100×90×32×64×64×2
(u,v)
depth–latitude–longitude, 90 days
Appendix
Table 9: Datasets used in the experiments. Shapes are trajectories × time × spatial axes × channels.
Figure 3: Four evaluation subsets defined by sensor/off-sensor locations and support/missing frames. White dots indicate sensor measurements provided to the model.
Figure 4: Two missing-frame protocols on the original time grid: randomly withholding frames or withholding a contiguous block. Both endpoints remain support frames.
Figure 5: Internal timestamps are perturbed before being split into support and evaluation sets, while both endpoints remain fixed. Evaluation ground truth is recorded directly by the PDE solver.
Protocol
s
Method
S-sup
Off-sup
S-miss
Off-miss
Random-drop-half
0.01
SDIFT
0.373381
0.381700
0.378977
0.381200
LRTFR
0.311380
0.329100
0.308521
0.328814
PhysFTM
0.009898
0.187900
0.042055
0.191673
RecFNO
0.020782
0.697782
0.021170
0.696267
SIREN-MLP
0.351270
0.350988
0.349308
0.349007
PINNs
0.354653
0.354871
0.350601
0.350840
Appendix
Table 10: Complete four-subset reconstruction RMSE on AC2D across spatial sensor ratios. Lower is better. ( Bold : best, Underline : second best)
Protocol
s
Method
S-sup
Off-sup
S-miss
Off-miss
Random-drop-half
0.01
SDIFT
0.518934
0.512800
0.510791
0.509261
LRTFR
0.123841
0.172000
0.126188
0.170679
PhysFTM
0.007849
0.137700
0.030927
0.130659
RecFNO
0.261520
0.418079
0.262461
0.413223
SIREN-MLP
0.244818
0.245620
0.243905
0.244360
PINNs
0.338968
0.341335
0.339094
0.341072
Appendix
Table 11: Complete four-subset reconstruction RMSE on NS2D across spatial sensor ratios. Lower is better. ( Bold : best, Underline : second best)
Protocol
s
Method
S-sup
Off-sup
S-miss
Off-miss
Random-drop-half
0.01
SDIFT
0.058457
0.058594
0.061825
0.062284
LRTFR
0.010659
0.010815
0.012014
0.012549
PhysFTM
0.001344
0.001907
0.006379
0.006824
RecFNO
0.339625
0.888925
0.307609
0.813064
SIREN-MLP
0.040199
0.040240
0.042215
0.042397
PINNs
0.040309
0.040409
0.041993
0.042295
Appendix
Table 12: Complete four-subset reconstruction RMSE on Heat3D across spatial sensor ratios. Lower is better. ( Bold : best, Underline : second best)
Protocol
s
Method
S-sup
Off-sup
S-miss
Off-miss
Random-drop-half
0.01
SDIFT
0.281171
0.278458
0.280994
0.280682
LRTFR
0.113447
0.126022
0.122721
0.133850
PhysFTM
0.006599
0.115414
0.076277
0.125325
RecFNO
0.758963
1.005671
0.793739
1.002127
SIREN-MLP
0.200624
0.203220
0.196868
0.200081
PINNs
0.297127
0.301674
0.295973
0.301402
Appendix
Table 13: Complete four-subset reconstruction RMSE on Ocean across spatial sensor ratios. Lower is better. ( Bold : best, Underline : second best)
Understanding physical systems often requires recovering their full spatial state from measurements available only at sparse locations. This reconstruction becomes challenging when physical boundaries are unknown, high-resolution training fields are unavailable, or important quantities cannot be measured directly. Sparse observations may also be consistent with multiple plausible states, leading to significant reconstruction uncertainty. Here we introduce Direct Measurement-to-Field Generation (\DMF{}), a functional rectified flow framework that learns how sparse measurements drive physical-field generation end to end. Instead of relying on grid-based rasterization or runtime guidance, \DMF{} jointly learns a sensor--global--sensor representation with the generative transport, dynamically fusing local grounding with global context to evaluate physical fields at arbitrary query coordinates. Across benchmarks involving unobserved boundaries, missing high-resolution training fields, and unmeasured physical quantities, \DMF{} outperforms alternative baselines by significantly reducing reconstruction errors and preserving the fidelity of physical properties. Furthermore, its stochastic ensemble generation reliably quantifies uncertainty while improving continuous ranked probability scores. These results extend sparse reconstruction from fixed-setting point estimation toward measurement-conditioned generation of physical fields under incomplete and changing information.
Linzheng Wang, Jason Chen, Nicolas Tricard +3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA · Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK · Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
Inferring the evolution of high-dimensional and multi-modal (e.g., spatio-temporal) physical fields from irregular sparse measurements in real time is a fundamental challenge in science and engineering. Existing approaches, including diffusion-based generative models and functional tensor methods, typically operate in offline settings, depend on full temporal observations, or incur substantial inference cost. We propose StreamPhy, an end-to-end framework that enables efficient and accurate streaming inference of full-field physical dynamics from incoming irregular sparse measurements. The framework integrates a data-adaptive observation encoder that is robust to arbitrary observation patterns, a structured state-space model that supports memory-efficient online updates across irregular time intervals, and an expressive Functional Tensor Feature-wise Linear Modulation (FT-FiLM) decoder for continuous-field generation. We prove that FT-FiLM is more expressive than the functional Tucker model, admitting a richer function class for handling complex dynamics. Experiments on three representative physical systems under challenging sampling patterns show that StreamPhy consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, with at least 48% improvement in accuracy and up to 20--100X faster inference than diffusion-based methods.
Panqi Chen, Yifan Sun, Shikai Fang +2
College of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University · School of EECS,Oregon State University
Reconstructing continuous physical fields from sparse measurements is a central inverse problem, but data-driven generative models can produce states that violate governing dynamics. We introduce a physics-informed generative solver that separates stable prior learning from inference-time enforcement of conservation laws. Martingale-Regularized Score Matching regularizes score pretraining with a Score Fokker-Planck constraint, yielding a dynamically stable prior. Physics-Informed Implicit Score Sampling then guides denoising trajectories by gradients of physical residuals, projecting samples toward admissible manifolds without retraining. In acoustics, the method co-generates pressure and particle velocity from sparse sensors, enabling dense virtual arrays that suppress spatial aliasing. The same framework generalizes to real-world ERA5 meteorological fields under extreme sparsity. Together, this work establishes a rigorous and generalizable paradigm for solving high-dimensional inverse problems, bridging the gap between generative artificial intelligence and first-principles science.
Ziyuan Zhu, Keyu Hu, Zhifei Chen +10
School of Advanced Manufacturing Engineering, Nanjing University, Suzhou, 215163, China. · National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructures, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China. · Suzhou Acoustics Industry Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd., Suzhou, 215513, China. +8