On the Role of Consistency Between Physics and Data in Physics-Informed Neural Networks

TL;DR

This paper investigates how inconsistencies between data and physical laws limit the accuracy of physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), introducing the concept of a consistency barrier and analyzing its effects through controlled experiments on the Burgers equation.

Contribution

The paper introduces the concept of a consistency barrier in PINNs, quantifies its impact on accuracy, and provides practical insights into data quality requirements for effective physics-informed modeling.

Findings

Data inconsistency imposes a fundamental accuracy limit on PINNs.

High-fidelity data can overcome the consistency barrier.

PINNs trained on consistent data match analytical solutions.

Abstract

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have gained significant attention as a surrogate modeling strategy for partial differential equations (PDEs), particularly in regimes where labeled data are scarce and physical constraints can be leveraged to regularize the learning process. In practice, however, PINNs are frequently trained using experimental or numerical data that are not fully consistent with the governing equations due to measurement noise, discretization errors, or modeling assumptions. The implications of such data-to-PDE inconsistencies on the accuracy and convergence of PINNs remain insufficiently understood. In this work, we systematically analyze how data inconsistency fundamentally limits the attainable accuracy of PINNs. We introduce the concept of a consistency barrier, defined as an intrinsic lower bound on the error that arises from mismatches between the fidelity of the data and the exact enforcement of the PDE residual. To isolate and quantify this effect, we consider the 1D viscous Burgers equation with a manufactured analytical solution, which enables full control over data fidelity and residual errors. PINNs are trained using datasets of progressively increasing numerical accuracy, as well as perfectly consistent analytical data. Results show that while the inclusion of the PDE residual allows PINNs to partially mitigate low-fidelity data and recover the dominant physical structure, the training process ultimately saturates at an error level dictated by the data inconsistency. When high-fidelity numerical data are employed, PINN solutions become indistinguishable from those trained on analytical data, indicating that the consistency barrier is effectively removed. These findings clarify the interplay between data quality and physics enforcement in PINNs providing practical guidance for the construction and interpretation of physics-informed surrogate models.