Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Learning Where to Simulate: Generative Active Sampling for Online PDE Surrogate Training

About

Data-driven PDE surrogates are trained with data produced by numerical PDE solvers. However, when the surrogate's goal is to generalize across a wide range of PDE configurations (e.g., initial conditions and physical coefficients), generating a representative training set is non-trivial. Uniform sampling of configuration parameters often under-represents trajectories exhibiting challenging dynamics, leading to high prediction errors and large error variance in the trained surrogate. Online training, where data generation and surrogate training are coupled, offers a natural advantage by allowing solver parameters to be steered on-the-fly. To efficiently exploit this capability, we introduce Online Generative Active Sampling (OGAS), an active learning method that reactively learns the relationship between configuration parameters and surrogate performance to control the sampling distribution. OGAS trains a fast diffusion model in parallel to the surrogate to act as a conditional sampler, mapping a surrogate-derived difficulty signal (e.g., loss or uncertainty) to configuration parameters. By actively drawing target signals from a prior biased toward high difficulty, OGAS continuously steers data generation toward challenging regimes without delaying the training workflow. We evaluate OGAS across 2D PDEs with distinct challenging dynamics (Kuramoto-Sivashinsky, Navier-Stokes, Gray-Scott) and up to 308 parameters, using multiple surrogate architectures. Across all settings, OGAS consistently improves tail statistics, yielding substantial reductions in errors above the 99th percentile and overall error dispersion compared to uniform sampling. While prioritizing challenging trajectories introduces a trade-off with average error, OGAS effectively ensures worst-case reliability of trained surrogates with negligible wall-time overhead.

Pierre Cesar, Sofya Dymchenko, Abhishek Purandare, Bruno Raffin• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
PDE solvingNavier-Stokes 2D--
34
PDE solving2D Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (test)
Mean Error0.89
27
PDE Surrogate Modeling2D Kuramoto-Sivashinsky and Gray-Scott
Mean Error0.93
24
PDE solvingNavier-Stokes 2D (test)
Relative MSE Loss1.03
24
Active Learning2D Navier-Stokes Kolmogorov flow (test)
Mean Error1.03
21
PDE solving2D Gray-Scott
Mean Error1.41
14
Partial Differential Equation (PDE) SolvingGray-Scott PDE (test)
Mean Improvement Ratio0.96
12
Active Learning for Fluid DynamicsKolmogorov flow 2D Navier-Stokes
Mean1.72
7
Neural PDE SolvingGray–Scott Eq. Forward 2D (test)
Mean Error1.44
7
PDE solving2D Gray-Scott (test)
Mean1.53
7
Showing 10 of 17 rows

Other info

Follow for update