From Basis to Basis: Gaussian Particle Representation for Interpretable PDE Operators
Zhihao Li, Yu Feng, Zhilu Lai, Wei Wang

TL;DR
This paper introduces a Gaussian basis representation for PDE operators that enhances interpretability, handles high-frequency structures efficiently, and achieves near-linear complexity, outperforming existing neural operator methods.
Contribution
It proposes a novel Gaussian particle basis for PDE modeling, enabling explicit geometric interpretation and scalable, resolution-agnostic operator learning.
Findings
Achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on PDE benchmarks.
Provides intrinsic interpretability through explicit geometric parameters.
Supports irregular geometries and 2D-to-3D extension seamlessly.
Abstract
Learning PDE dynamics for fluids increasingly relies on neural operators and Transformer-based models, yet these approaches often lack interpretability and struggle with localized, high-frequency structures while incurring quadratic cost in spatial samples. We propose representing fields with a Gaussian basis, where learned atoms carry explicit geometry (centers, anisotropic scales, weights) and form a compact, mesh-agnostic, directly visualizable state. Building on this representation, we introduce a Gaussian Particle Operator that acts in modal space: learned Gaussian modal windows perform a Petrov-Galerkin measurement, and PG Gaussian Attention enables global cross-scale coupling. This basis-to-basis design is resolution-agnostic and achieves near-linear complexity in N for a fixed modal budget, supporting irregular geometries and seamless 2D-to-3D extension. On standard PDE…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- The method is well-formulated, with relevant theoretical proofs (e.g., universal approximation) grounding the model design . It demonstrates competitive performance against established neural operator baselines on the tested problems . - The interpretability of the representation is a key strength. Figures 3 and 4 nicely shows the learned particles aligning with physical structures like fronts and filaments. - The bottleneck design of performing the compression into $G$ modal windows is a sma
- The selection of benchmarks could be strengthened. To fully evaluate the method's efficacy against the current state-of-the-art and ensure fair comparisons, it would be beneficial to test it on more recent, standardized benchmarks. The datasets from 'TheWell', for example, would be an excellent candidate for this. - While the paper claims that rollout stability is a strength, these claims are not substantiated. The paper provides no details on the rollout windows evaluated. How long can the me
- The use of Gaussian particles as latent bases for neural operators provides an interpretable and geometrically meaningful representation of the field. - The design of PG Gaussian Attention links variational numerical methods and attention mechanisms, which is conceptually appealing. - The computational analysis shows near-linear scaling with respect to the number of spatial points, which is beneficial for high-resolution or 3D applications.
- Marginal performance improvement: Despite the interesting design, GPO’s accuracy gains are minor. For example, on NS2D/NS3D, FNO—with fewer parameters—performs better or comparably, suggesting limited practical benefit. - Outdated or insufficient baselines: The comparisons rely on older models (FNO 2021, LSM 2023). Recent linear-complexity Transformers such as [arXiv:2310.01082] and [arXiv:2502.16249] (and many others) demonstrate superior efficiency and accuracy, and should be included for a
- The paper introduces a novel representation of PDE fields as learnable Gaussian mixtures. While Gaussian kernels have been used in kernel neural operators and multigrid models, this work is the first to make them the primary latent state and to combine them with a Petrov–Galerkin attention formulation. - The connection between neural operator learning and Petrov–Galerkin projection is insightful and contributes to interpretability and theoretical grounding. - The paper is mathematically rigo
1) Missing comparisons to prior Gaussian-kernel operator works The use of Gaussian kernels in PDE learning is not entirely novel; several recent operator frameworks rely on Gaussian or RBF kernels as integral components [1][2][3][4][5] While M²NO and MGNO are briefly mentioned in the related-work section, no experimental or architectural comparison is made. The authors should clarify how GPO differs (e.g., explicit particle state vs. fixed Gaussian smoothing) and whether it outperforms or scal
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsModel Reduction and Neural Networks · Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
