Locally Subspace-Informed Neural Operators for Efficient Multiscale PDE Solving
Alexander Rudikov, Vladimir Fanaskov, Sergei Stepanov, Buzheng Shan, Ekaterina Muravleva, Yalchin Efendiev, Ivan Oseledets

TL;DR
This paper introduces a hybrid neural operator approach that learns subspaces for multiscale PDEs, significantly improving accuracy and efficiency over traditional methods and standalone neural operators.
Contribution
It proposes a novel subspace-informed neural operator framework that reduces basis construction costs and enhances multiscale PDE solving accuracy.
Findings
Reduces solution error by ~60% compared to standalone NOs.
Cuts basis-construction time by ~60 times relative to classical GMsFEM.
Achieves efficient and accurate multiscale PDE solutions independent of forcing and boundary conditions.
Abstract
Neural operators (NOs) struggle with high-contrast multiscale partial differential equations (PDEs), where fine-scale heterogeneities cause large errors. To address this, we use the Generalized Multiscale Finite Element Method (GMsFEM) that constructs localized spectral basis functions on coarse grids. This approach efficiently captures dominant multiscale features while solving heterogeneous PDEs accurately at reduced computational cost. However, computing these basis functions is computationally expensive. This gap motivates our core idea: to use a NO to learn the subspace itself - rather than individual basis functions - by employing a subspace-informed loss. On standard multiscale benchmarks - namely a linear elliptic diffusion problem and the nonlinear, steady-state Richards equation - our hybrid method cuts solution error by approximately compared with standalone NOs andā¦
Peer Reviews
DecisionĀ·ICLR 2026 Poster
The conceptual shift from matching basis functions to matching their span is clear and well motivated, aligning the learning objective with what GMsFEM truly needs. The subspace alignment loss directly optimizes principal angles on the Grassmann manifold, removing sign and ordering ambiguities and leading to stable training. The framework preserves the classical coarse-solve pipeline, so accuracy remains comparable to GMsFEM while offline cost is drastically reduced; the empirical speedups are p
Theoretical guarantees connect subspace error to final solution error only implicitly; a formal upper bound from principal angles to $š»^1$error would strengthen soundness. Evaluation focuses on structured grids with Dirichlet boundaries and steady problems; non-structured meshes, mixed or Robin boundaries, and time-dependent or strongly nonlinear systems remain open. Comparisons omit graph- or mesh-based neural operators and learning-augmented multigrid with learned prolongation/restriction, wh
1. **Targets the real bottleneck.** It identifies the most expensive part of GMsFEM (local spectral problems in the offline stage) and replaces it with an NO, which is a practical and impactful acceleration. 2. **Subspace-level supervision.** The proposed $(\mathcal{L}_{\text{SAL}})$ is technically meaningful: learning the *space* of local bases is more robust than learning each basis function, and it naturally resolves sign ambiguity; this is the main methodological contribution. 3. **Strong em
1. **Marginal gain from $(\mathcal{L}_{\text{SAL-PR}})$.** The paper introduces a more complex variant with projection regularization, but the improvement over plain $(\mathcal{L}_{\text{SAL}})$ is small (e.g. 1.82% ā 1.72% on 250Ć250), and only on a single setting; the extra term is not clearly justified. 2. **Systematically ābetter thanā the target.** In several tables, GMsFEM-NO slightly outperforms the original GMsFEM it is approximating; calling this āstatistical variationā is not entirely
The combination of GMSFEM with NO is an interesting idea. The proposed SAL and PR losses can train the NO effectively.
The method is only tested with m moderate-scale data in rectangular domains. Is it able to solve larger-scale problems in non-rectangle domains? The generalization ability of the learned NO is not evaluated sufficiently. The usability of the method is unclear. Only zero Dirichlet boundary condition equations are tested? Can it solve Dirichlet boundary condition equations with other values?
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering Ā· Model Reduction and Neural Networks Ā· Composite Material Mechanics
