Variable-order fractional partial differential equations describe anomalous transport in heterogeneous porous media, where the fractional order encodes the spatial variability of the medium. In subsurface applications such as groundwater flow and oil reservoir characterization, the fractional order is typically unknown and varies spatially, making its recovery alongside the concentration field an ill-posed inverse problem. We propose a physics-informed neural network (PINN) that jointly recovers the space-dependent fractional order $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ and the concentration field $ u(x, t) $ from sparse, noise-contaminated measurements. The method represents the solution through a power series expansion in space, which permits analytical computation of fractional derivatives via Gamma function identities and circumvents the need for numerical discretization. A dual-network architecture separates solution reconstruction from parameter inference: One network learns time-dependent series coefficients, while the other estimates the fractional order. The framework is validated on four geological configurations, fractured media, fault zones, dual-porosity systems, and field-like heterogeneous formations, using synthetic monitoring well data with realistic noise levels.
For the forward problem, the power series PINN achieves excellent accuracy with $ L2 $ relative errors on the order of $ {10}^{-4} $ when using $ N = 12 $ expansion terms. The joint inversion problem poses greater challenges: With the current configuration using $ N = 8 $ and $ \mathrm{10,121} $ parameters, the $ L2 $ relative error in the concentration field is $ 3.93\times {10}^{-1} $ and the MSE in $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ is $ 2.92\times {10}^{-1} $. These results highlight the ill-posed nature of recovering both the heterogeneity parameter and the concentration field from sparse data.
In the real-world application to the fractured media scenario with $ N = 12 $, the framework recovers $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ with an MSE of $ 4.56\times {10}^{-5} $ and reconstructs the concentration field with $ L2 $ relative error of 2.34 × 10-3 using eight monitoring wells with 1.5% observation noise. For uncertainty quantification, we implement both Monte Carlo Dropout and ensemble-based techniques. The ensemble method yields $ 95\% $ confidence intervals for $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ with coverage rates of $ 94.2\% $, surpassing MC Dropout at $ 92.1\% $ coverage. The ensemble approach also pinpoints spatial regions where the recovered heterogeneity is most uncertain, offering practical guidance for optimizing monitoring network design. The overall training requires roughly two hours on a standard GPU and demonstrates consistent performance across diverse heterogeneity patterns. The proposed framework provides a computationally feasible and uncertainty-aware tool for subsurface characterization that bridges fractional calculus models with practical data constraints.
Citation: Muhammad Azam. Power series physics-informed neural networks for variable-order fractional diffusion: Forward modeling, joint inversion, and uncertainty quantification in heterogeneous porous media[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2026, 11(9): 31610-31663. doi: 10.3934/math.20261247
Variable-order fractional partial differential equations describe anomalous transport in heterogeneous porous media, where the fractional order encodes the spatial variability of the medium. In subsurface applications such as groundwater flow and oil reservoir characterization, the fractional order is typically unknown and varies spatially, making its recovery alongside the concentration field an ill-posed inverse problem. We propose a physics-informed neural network (PINN) that jointly recovers the space-dependent fractional order $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ and the concentration field $ u(x, t) $ from sparse, noise-contaminated measurements. The method represents the solution through a power series expansion in space, which permits analytical computation of fractional derivatives via Gamma function identities and circumvents the need for numerical discretization. A dual-network architecture separates solution reconstruction from parameter inference: One network learns time-dependent series coefficients, while the other estimates the fractional order. The framework is validated on four geological configurations, fractured media, fault zones, dual-porosity systems, and field-like heterogeneous formations, using synthetic monitoring well data with realistic noise levels.
For the forward problem, the power series PINN achieves excellent accuracy with $ L2 $ relative errors on the order of $ {10}^{-4} $ when using $ N = 12 $ expansion terms. The joint inversion problem poses greater challenges: With the current configuration using $ N = 8 $ and $ \mathrm{10,121} $ parameters, the $ L2 $ relative error in the concentration field is $ 3.93\times {10}^{-1} $ and the MSE in $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ is $ 2.92\times {10}^{-1} $. These results highlight the ill-posed nature of recovering both the heterogeneity parameter and the concentration field from sparse data.
In the real-world application to the fractured media scenario with $ N = 12 $, the framework recovers $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ with an MSE of $ 4.56\times {10}^{-5} $ and reconstructs the concentration field with $ L2 $ relative error of 2.34 × 10-3 using eight monitoring wells with 1.5% observation noise. For uncertainty quantification, we implement both Monte Carlo Dropout and ensemble-based techniques. The ensemble method yields $ 95\% $ confidence intervals for $ \alpha \left(x\right) $ with coverage rates of $ 94.2\% $, surpassing MC Dropout at $ 92.1\% $ coverage. The ensemble approach also pinpoints spatial regions where the recovered heterogeneity is most uncertain, offering practical guidance for optimizing monitoring network design. The overall training requires roughly two hours on a standard GPU and demonstrates consistent performance across diverse heterogeneity patterns. The proposed framework provides a computationally feasible and uncertainty-aware tool for subsurface characterization that bridges fractional calculus models with practical data constraints.
| [1] | I. Podlubny, Fractional differential equations: An introduction to fractional derivatives, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and their applications, San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, 1998. |
| [2] | A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, J. J. Trujillo, Theory and applications of fractional differential equations, North-Holland Mathematics Studies, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 204 (2006). |
| [3] | S. G. Samko, Fractional integrals and derivatives: Theory and applications, Yverdon, Switzerland: Gordon and Breach, 1993. |
| [4] |
H. Sun, W. Chen, Y. Chen, Variable-order fractional differential operators in anomalous diffusion modeling, Physica A, 388 (2009), 4586–4592. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2009.07.024 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2009.07.024
|
| [5] |
C. F. Lorenzo, T. T. Hartley, Variable order and distributed order fractional operators, Nonlinear Dyn., 29 (2002), 57–98. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016586905654 doi: 10.1023/A:1016586905654
|
| [6] |
C. F. M. Coimbra, Mechanics with variable‐order differential operators, Ann. Phys., 515 (2003), 692–703. http://doi.org/10.1002/andp.200351511-1203 doi: 10.1002/andp.200351511-1203
|
| [7] |
D. A. Benson, S. W. Wheatcraft, M. M. Meerschaert, Application of a fractional advection‐dispersion equation, Water Resour. Res., 36 (2000), 1403–1412. http://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900031 doi: 10.1029/2000WR900031
|
| [8] |
B. Berkowitz, A. Cortis, M. Dentz, H. Scher, Modeling non‐Fickian transport in geological formations as a continuous time random walk, Rev. Geophys., 44 (2006), 2. http://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000178 doi: 10.1029/2005RG000178
|
| [9] |
S. P. Neuman, Universal scaling of hydraulic conductivities and dispersivities in geologic media, Water Resour. Res., 26 (1990), 1749–1758. http://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i008p01749 doi: 10.1029/WR026i008p01749
|
| [10] |
W. Liu, Y. Liu, VooPINN: Physics-informed neural network with variable-order operator for forward and inverse problems of time fractional partial differential equations, Appl. Math. Comput., 524 (2026), 130044. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2026.130044 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2026.130044
|
| [11] |
W. Liu, F. Zeng, H. Li, Y. Liu, ITPINN : Integral-trainable physics informed neural network for solving high-dimensional evolution non-local partial differential equations, Comput. Math. Appl., 205 (2026), 282–317. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2026.01.019 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2026.01.019
|
| [12] |
X. Yan, W. Hu, Z. Han, H. Hou, Multi-symplectic physics-informed neural network for nonlinear infinite-dimensional Hamilton system, Phys. Lett. A, 583 (2026), 131616. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2026.131616 doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2026.131616
|
| [13] |
X. Yan, W. Hu, Z. Han, Generalized multi-symplectic PINN method and its application in quantum tunneling simulations, Phys. Rev. E, 113 (2026), 035308. http://doi.org/10.1103/nk98-zxlm doi: 10.1103/nk98-zxlm
|
| [14] | R. Schumer, D. A. Benson, M. M. Meerschaert, B. Baeumer, Fractal mobile/immobile solute transport, Water Resour. Res., 39 (2003). http://doi.org/10.10.1029/2003WR002141 |
| [15] | G. Pang, L. Lu, G. E. Karniadakis, fPINNs: Fractional physics-informed neural networks, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 41 (2019), A2603–A2626. http://doi.org/10.1137/18M1229845 |
| [16] |
L. Guo, H. Wu, X. Yu, T. Zhou, Monte Carlo fPINNs: Deep learning method for forward and inverse problems involving high dimensional fractional partial differential equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 400 (2022), 115523. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2022.115523 doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2022.115523
|
| [17] |
S. Wang, H. Zhang, X. Jiang, Physics-informed neural network algorithm for solving forward and inverse problems of variable-order space-fractional advection–diffusion equations, Neurocomputing, 535 (2023), 64–82. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2023.03.032 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2023.03.032
|
| [18] | Z. Ghahramani, Y. Gal, Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning, ICML'16: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, 48 (2016). |
| [19] | A. Pritzel, C. Blundell, B. Lakshminarayanan, Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles, NIPS'17: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2 (2017). |
| [20] |
M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys., 378 (2019), 686–707. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045
|
| [21] |
G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, L. Yang, Physics-informed machine learning, Nature Rev. Phys., 3 (2021), 422–440. http://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5 doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5
|
| [22] | P. Zhuang, F. Liu, V. Anh, I. Turner, Numerical methods for the variable-order fractional advection-diffusion equation with a nonlinear source term, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 47 (2009), 1760–1781. |
| [23] | G. E. Karniadakis, M. Zayernouri, Fractional spectral collocation method, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 2014. |
| [24] |
A. Bueno-Orovio, D. Kay, V. Grau, B. Rodriguez, K. Burrage, Fractional diffusion models of cardiac electrical propagation: Role of structural heterogeneity in dispersion of repolarization, J. R. Soc. Interface, 11 (2014), 20140352. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0352 doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0352
|
| [25] | M. M. Meerschaert, A. Sikorskii, Stochastic models for fractional calculus, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 43 (2019). |
| [26] |
R. Metzler, J. Klafter, The random walk's guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach, Phys. Rep., 339 (2000), 1–77. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00070-3 doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00070-3
|
| [27] |
Y. Zhang, D. A. Benson, M. M. Meerschaert, E. M. LaBolle, Space‐fractional advection‐dispersion equations with variable parameters: Diverse formulas, numerical solutions, and application to the Macrodispersion Experiment site data, Water Resour. Res., 43 (2007), 5. http://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR004912 doi: 10.1029/2006WR004912
|
| [28] |
L. Lu, X. Meng, Z. Mao, G. E. Karniadakis, DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equations, SIAM Rev., 63 (2021), 208–228. http://doi.org/10.1137/19M1274067 doi: 10.1137/19M1274067
|
| [29] | X. Jin, S. Cai, H. Li, G. E. Karniadakis, NSFnets (Navier-Stokes flow nets): Physics-informed neural networks for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys., 426 (2021), http://doi.org/109951.10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109951 |
| [30] |
J. Sirignano, K. Spiliopoulos, DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys., 375 (2018), 1339–1364. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.08.029 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.08.029
|
| [31] |
R. K. Getoor, First passage times for symmetric stable processes in space, Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 101 (1961), 75–90. http://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-1961-0137148-5 doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1961-0137148-5
|
| [32] |
B. Dyda, A. V. Vähäkangas, A framework for fractional Hardy inequalities, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn.-M., 39 (2014), 675–689. http://doi.org/10.5186/aasfm.2014.3943 doi: 10.5186/aasfm.2014.3943
|
| [33] |
L. Caffarelli, L. Silvestre, An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 32 (2007), 1245–1260. http://doi.org/10.1080/03605300600987306 doi: 10.1080/03605300600987306
|