PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Multi-Resolution Learning with DeepONets and Long Short-Term Memory Neural Networks

Katarzyna Michałowska, Somdatta Goswami, George Em Karniadakis, Signe Riemer-Sørensen

general MLmulti-resolution learningoperator learningrecurrent neural networksDeepONetLSTMdynamical systems
16.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
17.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)
20.30100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We propose DON-LSTM, a combination of deep operator networks and long short-term memory networks which allows for multi-resolution training and accurate prediction for long-time horizons

Abstract

Deep operator networks (DeepONets, DONs) offer a distinct advantage over traditional neural networks in their ability to be trained on multi-resolution data. This property becomes especially relevant in real-world scenarios where high-resolution measurements are difficult to obtain, while low-resolution data is more readily available. Nevertheless, DeepONets alone often struggle to capture and maintain dependencies over long sequences compared to other state-of-the-art algorithms. We propose a novel architecture, named DON-LSTM, which extends the DeepONet with a long short-term memory network (LSTM). Combining these two architectures, we equip the network with explicit mechanisms to leverage multi-resolution data, as well as capture temporal dependencies in long sequences. We test our method on long-time-evolution modeling of multiple non-linear systems and show that the proposed multi-resolution DON-LSTM achieves significantly lower generalization error and requires fewer high-resolution samples compared to its vanilla counterparts.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 32 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 38% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)