Abstract:Recently, physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have emerged as a flexible and promising application of deep learning to partial differential equations in the physical sciences. While offering strong performance and competitive inference speeds on forward and inverse problems, their black-box nature limits interpretability, particularly regarding alignment with expected physical behavior. In the present work, we explore the application of influence functions (IFs) to validate and debug PINNs post-hoc. Specifically, we apply variations of IF-based indicators to gauge the influence of different types of collocation points on the prediction of PINNs applied to a 2D Navier-Stokes fluid flow problem. Our results demonstrate how IFs can be adapted to PINNs to reveal the potential for further studies.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The core problem that this paper attempts to solve is to improve the interpretability of physics - informed neural networks (PINNs), especially in the application of fluid mechanics. Specifically, by introducing Influence Functions (IFs), the author explores how to verify and debug the behavior of PINNs, especially their performance in dealing with two - dimensional Navier - Stokes fluid flow problems. ### Main research questions 1. **Interpretability of black - box models**: - Although PINNs perform well in solving partial differential equations (PDEs), their black - box nature limits the understanding of model behavior, especially the consistency with the expected physical behavior. - The author hopes to reveal the influence of different types of collocation points on PINNs predictions through influence functions, thereby improving the interpretability of the model. 2. **Verifying and debugging PINNs**: - The author proposes to use IFs to evaluate the influence of different collocation points on PINNs predictions, especially when dealing with two - dimensional Navier - Stokes fluid flow problems. - Through this method, key training points, boundary conditions or physical principles that have a significant impact on model behavior can be identified. ### Specific methods - **Application of influence functions**: The author applies influence functions to PINNs to evaluate the influence of different collocation points on model predictions. Specifically, they propose two indicators based on IFs: - **Directional Indicator (DI)**: Used to capture the influence of fluid flow direction. - **Object/Region Indicator (OI)**: Used to evaluate the influence of specific objects (such as cylinders) on the overall flow field. ### Experimental setup - **Navier - Stokes problem**: The author selects the problem of two - dimensional incompressible laminar flow around a cylinder as the experimental object. - **Model training**: Three different versions of PINNs are trained: - **ϕgood**: With the correct PDE and a sufficient number of training points, it has good performance. - **ϕbroken**: Lacking some physical terms, resulting in training errors. - **ϕbad**: With the correct PDE but fewer training points, it has poor performance. ### Results - **Influence heat map**: It shows the influence of different training points on the entire test set. For the well - performing model (ϕgood), the most influential points are concentrated near the inlet, outlet and the cylinder, which is in line with physical expectations. - **Indicator evaluation**: Through the evaluation of DI and OI indicators, it is found that the ϕgood model performs best in these two indicators, indicating that it better captures the physical characteristics of fluid flow. ### Conclusions The author shows how to use influence functions to evaluate PINNs and proposes IFs - based indicators to verify and debug the model. Although these indicators cannot fully guarantee the correctness of the model, they provide valuable insights into model behavior. Future research can further explore the application of IFs in other physical problems and combine other training - time techniques to improve the training process of PINNs. ### Summary This paper aims to improve the interpretability and reliability of PINNs in dealing with complex physical problems (such as Navier - Stokes equations) by introducing influence functions.

PINNfluence: Influence Functions for Physics-Informed Neural Networks

Machine Learning Through Physics–Informed Neural Networks: Progress and Challenges

Investigations on Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Aerodynamics

Inverse Physics-Informed Neural Networks for transport models in porous materials

Scientific Machine Learning Through Physics–Informed Neural Networks: Where we are and What's Next

A Class of Improved Fractional Physics Informed Neural Networks

Deep fuzzy physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE problems

Exploring Physics-Informed Neural Networks: From Fundamentals to Applications in Complex Systems

Advancing Generalization in PINNs through Latent-Space Representations

NeuralPDE: Automating Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) with Error Approximations

From PINNs to PIKANs: Recent Advances in Physics-Informed Machine Learning

A Direct-Forcing Immersed Boundary Method for Incompressible Flows Based on Physics-Informed Neural Network

Physics-informed neural nets for control of dynamical systems

A-PINN: Auxiliary physics informed neural networks for forward and inverse problems of nonlinear integro-differential equations

SetPINNs: Set-based Physics-informed Neural Networks

PINNsFormer: A Transformer-Based Framework For Physics-Informed Neural Networks

iPINNs: incremental learning for Physics-informed neural networks

Applying Physics-Informed Neural Networks to Solve Navier–Stokes Equations for Laminar Flow around a Particle

Physics-informed neural networks for transformed geometries and manifolds

FO-PINNs: A First-Order formulation for Physics Informed Neural Networks