Gaussian Process Priors for Boundary Value Problems of Linear Partial Differential Equations
Jianlei Huang, Marc H\"ark\"onen, Markus Lange-Hegermann, Bogdan Rai\c{t}\u{a}

TL;DR
This paper introduces Boundary Ehrenpreis--Palamodov Gaussian Processes (B-EPGPs), a new probabilistic framework for solving linear PDE systems with boundary conditions, showing improved accuracy and efficiency over existing methods.
Contribution
It presents a novel GP prior construction for linear PDEs with boundary conditions, with formal proofs and empirical validation.
Findings
Significant accuracy improvements over state-of-the-art methods
Reduced computational resources required
Effective handling of boundary conditions in PDE systems
Abstract
Working with systems of partial differential equations (PDEs) is a fundamental task in computational science. Well-posed systems are addressed by numerical solvers or neural operators, whereas systems described by data are often addressed by PINNs or Gaussian processes. In this work, we propose Boundary Ehrenpreis--Palamodov Gaussian Processes (B-EPGPs), a novel probabilistic framework for constructing GP priors that satisfy both general systems of linear PDEs with constant coefficients and linear boundary conditions and can be conditioned on a finite data set. We explicitly construct GP priors for representative PDE systems with practical boundary conditions. Formal proofs of correctness are provided and empirical results demonstrating significant accuracy and computational resource improvements over state-of-the-art approaches.
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
It provides a general, "physics-constrained" framework for a broad and critical class of PDE problems. By ensuring both the PDE and its boundary conditions are met exactly, B-EPGP offers a model that is more reliable, data-efficient, and computationally faster than methods that treat boundaries as soft penalties or data-fitting problems.
1. The algorithm for polygonal boundaries is based on an iterative process of the form "Repeat until S stabilizes." The authors say, "These steps in . . . do not generally terminate." While it is mentioned that for their examples it does terminate, the non-fulfillment of this important practical condition is not fully brought out. The conditions under which the process is guaranteed to terminate are not indicated.The infinite slab example is presented as a case of non-termination, but the soluti
## Strengths 1. **Novel GP construction**: The approach cleverly constructs kernels (from basis expansion) so that the GP domain naturally overlaps with the PDE solution space, which is an elegant solution to the problem. 2. **Strong theoretical contributions**: The paper provides rigorous derivations, theorems, and proofs (including proofs of correctness and convergence), which is commendable as theory often lags behind in this field. [however I didn't check the proof details] 3. **Exploits
## Weaknesses 1. **Requires bespoke treatment**: The method requires tailored, hand-crafted basis functions for each different PDE, with most calculations done manually. This is a stark departure from methods like PINNs that can be applied more automatically. While this leads to better performance, it significantly limits ease of use and scalability. 2. **Limited scope**: The method explicitly targets linear PDEs with constant coefficients, which is a restrictive problem class. 3. **Hybrid ap
In principle, I really like the line of work that derives parametric GPs so that they automatically satisfy PDEs, including the submission, but also prior work by Härkönen et al., Lange-Hegermann, and others. What I like especially about the submission and the closely related Härkönen et al. is that it applies to underspecified PDE problems. Enforcing essentially unique functions would not give much space for machine-learning algorithms to, loosely speaking, "do their thing". As such, I believe
Even though I think that the general idea of the contribution has potential, I think that the submission has considerable gaps in presentation and numerical evaluation: **A lack of mathematical precision inhibits readability:** It is clear from reading the manuscript that the authors are skilled mathematicians; however, the presentation lacks the technical precision that I would expect from this kind of work: - When writing "linear span" (eg in Theorems 2.1 or 3.6), do I assume correctly that
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAquatic and Environmental Studies
