PHDME: Physics-Informed Diffusion Models without Explicit Governing Equations
Kaiyuan Tan, Kendra Givens, Peilun Li, Thomas Beckers

TL;DR
This paper introduces PHDME, a physics-informed diffusion framework that models complex dynamical systems with incomplete physics and sparse data, improving trajectory forecasting accuracy and physical consistency.
Contribution
PHDME leverages port-Hamiltonian structures without requiring explicit governing equations, enabling effective diffusion modeling with limited observations.
Findings
Enhanced accuracy in PDE benchmarks
Improved physical consistency under data scarcity
Effective uncertainty quantification with conformal calibration
Abstract
Diffusion models provide expressive priors for forecasting trajectories of dynamical systems, but are typically unreliable in the sparse data regime. Physics-informed machine learning (PIML) improves reliability in such settings; however, most methods require \emph{explicit governing equations} during training, which are often only partially known due to complex and nonlinear dynamics. We introduce \textbf{PHDME}, a port-Hamiltonian diffusion framework designed for \emph{sparse observations} and \emph{incomplete physics}. PHDME leverages port-Hamiltonian structural prior but does not require full knowledge of the closed-form governing equations. Our approach first trains a Gaussian process distributed Port-Hamiltonian system (GP-dPHS) on limited observations to capture an energy-based representation of the dynamics. The GP-dPHS is then used to generate a physically consistent artificial…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
The reasoning linking Hamiltonian structure, energy conservation, and diffusion regularization is coherent. The experiments support the core claim that PHDME can generate physically consistent trajectories without explicit governing equations. The paper is technically sound but logically structured, in particular, the exposition of the Hamiltonian and GP-dPHS background is rigorous, and the two-stage training diagram helps readers grasp the workflow. The writing demonstrates mastery of both phys
The experimental diversity is limited: a single synthetic system (the nonlinear string + qualitative check) doesn’t establish generality across different physical domains (e.g., fluid flow, elasticity, robotics, multiphase systems). The reliance on a simulator that’s already physics-based may inflate the gains of PHDME versus standard data-driven baselines. The GP-dPHS prior is treated, more or less, as a black box. I hope to see checks on that energy or momentum are actually conserved (if “phys
The promise of this paper is appealing -- i.e., obtaining a Hamiltonian functional with limited data, while leveraging it to fine-tune the diffusion model. The framework produces full space-time fields in a single diffusion draw (conditioning on two frames), thereby bypassing costly rollouts and eliminating reliance on a heavy GP-dPHS integrator at test time. From only ~20 observed samples, GP-dPHS posterior draws generate large, physically consistent training sets for the diffusion model. Vanil
1. Training and sampling from GP-dPHS to synthesize trajectories is computationally demanding (the paper trains diffusion because direct GP-dPHS rollouts are slow), so the pipeline carries nontrivial offline overhead. 2. Results are shown on a single synthetic 1D string benchmark with only 20 observed samples, leaving external validity to other PDEs/real data untested.
- Combines physics-informed priors (via GP-based Port-Hamiltonian systems) with score-based diffusion modeling. This bridges structured physics modeling and generative uncertainty modeling. - Unlike PINNs or traditional physics-informed diffusion models, it infers latent physical structure directly from data. - The approach leverages limited observations to build a probabilistic physics prior before training the diffusion model. - Built-in uncertainty quantification: uses both GP posterior va
- Only a single PDE (the 1-D wave/string system) is tested; no real or high-dimensional datasets are used. Claims of generality (e.g., to soft robots, elasticity) are therefore speculative. - The “scarce data” scenario is simulated, but robustness to measurement noise or model misspecification is not demonstrated. - The reviewer would appreciate an elaboration on the contribution over existing GP-dPHS work (Beckers et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2024). The paper primarily extends these with a diffu
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsModel Reduction and Neural Networks · Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference · Control and Stability of Dynamical Systems
