In traditional numerical methods, boundary conditions are enforced rigidly — the solution must satisfy them. But in Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs), enforcing boundary conditions is not always straightforward. There are two fundamentally different ways to handle them: hard and soft enforcement.

If you’re working with PINNs, especially in 1D/2D PDEs or inverse problems, understanding the difference between these two methods is very essential. It affects your model’s accuracy, convergence behavior, stability, and physical validity.

Let’s walk through both, and I’ll show you not just what they are — but when to use them, why it matters, and how to implement each in practice.

What Are Boundary Conditions in the Context of PINNs?

When we solve PDEs, we’re not just solving an equation — we’re solving a constrained problem. The PDE describes what’s happening inside the domain, but boundary conditions (BCs) define how the solution behaves at the edges of that domain.

For instance, say we’re solving a 1D Poisson equation:

\[\frac{d^2 u}{dx^2} = f(x), \quad x \in (0, 1)\]

This doesn’t mean much until I specify values like:

\[u(0) = 0, \quad u(1) = 1\]

These are Dirichlet boundary conditions — they tell how the solution behaves at the endpoints. In traditional finite element methods (FEM) or finite difference methods (FDM), these are built into the system — they’re enforced exactly.

But in PINNs, we’re approximating the solution $u(x)$ using a neural network $\hat{u}_\theta(x)$, and the neural network doesn’t “know” the physics unless we inject it — both the PDE and the boundary conditions — into the training loop.

How Boundary Conditions Are Handled in PINNs

Let’s get concrete understanding.

You’re training a neural network $\hat{u}_\theta(x)$, and you want it to solve a PDE while also satisfying a BC, say $u(0) = 0$. There are two ways to enforce this in PINNs:

1. Soft boundary condition: Treat BCs as additional loss terms
2. Hard boundary condition: construct the neural network so BCs are automatically satisfied by design

These are very different approaches with different implications. Let’s look at each in detail.

Soft Boundary Conditions — Penalty-Based Enforcement

The soft approach is the more straightforward one. You simply add a loss term that penalizes the network whenever it violates the boundary condition.

How It Works

Your total loss becomes:

\[\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{PDE}} + \lambda \cdot \mathcal{L}_{\text{BC}}\]

Where:

• $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PDE}}$: the residual loss for the governing PDE, calculated at interior collocation points
• $\mathcal{L}_{\text{BC}}$: the mean squared error between the predicted boundary values and the known values
• $\lambda$: a weight that controls how strongly we enforce the boundary condition

For example, to enforce $u(0) = 0$, you’d simply do:

\[\mathcal{L}_{\text{BC}} = \left( \hat{u}_\theta(0) - 0 \right)^2\]

You can do this at multiple boundary points, and this works not just for Dirichlet conditions (fixed value), but also for Neumann (derivative specified) and Robin (combination) types.

The optimizer minimizes this term during training, but the network isn’t forced to satisfy the boundary condition exactly. Instead, it’s penalized — meaning the error between the predicted and actual boundary value is added to the loss. The larger the violation, the higher the penalty. The network learns to reduce this error, but it’s not guaranteed to eliminate it.

Pros of Soft BCs

• Easy to implement — just add a few more loss terms.
• Flexible — works well with any type of BC, even complex ones like Neumann and Robin.
• Easy to extend — supports time-dependent BCs, moving boundaries, or BCs with uncertainty.
• Sufficient for most practical problems, especially when exact boundary satisfaction isn’t critical.

This is why most introductory PINNs tutorials (including many DeepXDE examples) use soft BCs by default.

Cons of Soft BCs

• Boundary conditions are only satisfied approximately — you have to hope the optimizer gets close enough.
• Accuracy near boundaries can be poor, especially if $\lambda$ is too small.
• You may need to tune $\lambda$ carefully to avoid underfitting or overfitting the boundaries.
• Soft BCs may fail to converge well when combined with stiff PDEs or inverse problems — the BC violation starts affecting the physics.

Even if the interior solution looks good, violating the boundary conditions can completely invalidate the model physically, especially in engineering or physical simulations.

Hard vs Soft Boundary Conditions - Want to Learn the Actual Implementation??

Dive into real code, output transforms, and loss balancing. No theory fluff — just clear, practical implementation inside the PINNs Masterclass..

Enroll Now →

Hard Boundary Conditions — Built-in Satisfaction

The hard approach is more elegant and robust. You design the neural network output so that it automatically satisfies the boundary condition, no matter what the weights are.

This is done using an output transformation, where we design the network’s output to automatically match the boundary values — whether zero or non-zero. Instead of predicting the solution directly, we wrap the network inside a function that satisfies the boundary, so the network only learns the unconstrained part inside the domain.

How It Works

Say you want to solve a problem with:

\[u(0) = 0, \quad u(1) = 0\]

Instead of letting the network predict $u(x)$ directly, you define:

\[\hat{u}_\theta(x) = x(1 - x) \cdot N_\theta(x)\]

Here, $N_\theta(x)$ is a standard neural network with no constraints. But by multiplying it with $x(1 - x)$, we ensure:

\[\hat{u}_\theta(0) = 0, \quad \hat{u}_\theta(1) = 0 \quad \text{(always, regardless of } N_\theta)\]

So the Dirichlet BCs are satisfied exactly. You no longer need to include a boundary loss term — the only thing the optimizer cares about is minimizing the PDE residual inside the domain.

Pros of Hard BCs

• The boundary condition is guaranteed to be satisfied, to machine precision.
• No need for weighting BC loss — your optimization becomes cleaner.
• This often leads to faster convergence, especially in problems where the solution is tightly bound to the boundary behavior.
• It improves numerical stability in many stiff or inverse problems.

If your problem has simple Dirichlet conditions on known boundaries, this is almost always the better choice.

Cons of Hard BCs

• You need to manually construct the transformation function — this can get messy for:

  • Complex geometries (e.g., irregular domains)
  • Time-dependent or moving boundaries
  • Mixed BCs (e.g., Dirichlet + Neumann)
• It’s difficult to use hard enforcement for Neumann or Robin BCs directly.
• If you have multiple outputs (e.g., in systems of PDEs), the transformation logic needs to be extended per-output.

In practice, this is why hard BCs are mostly used in 1D and rectangular 2D domains, or when high accuracy is required at the boundary.

Comparison Table: Hard vs Soft BCs

Feature	Soft BC	Hard BC
Enforced By	Loss penalty	Output transformation
Accuracy	Approximate	Exact
Suitable for Dirichlet	✅	✅
Suitable for Neumann/Robin	✅	⚠️ Difficult
Loss weighting required	Yes (λ)	No
Implementation effort	Low	Medium–High
Works on complex domains	✅	❌ Not trivial
Used in inverse problems	✅ (common)	✅ (care needed)
Stability	Can be poor near boundary	Usually better

When Should You Use Which?

Use hard BCs when:

• You’re working with simple Dirichlet conditions (especially in 1D/2D)
• You need guaranteed satisfaction of boundary behavior
• You’re doing physics-critical simulations where even small BC errors can break realism
• You’re trying to improve convergence or stability

Use soft BCs when:

• You have Neumann, Robin, or mixed BCs
• Your domain is irregular or geometry-dependent
• You want more flexibility or easier implementation
• You’re working on inverse problems where the BC itself might be part of the unknown

In many real-world applications, it is good to mix both: enforce the Dirichlet BCs hard, and the rest softly — especially when the geometry is complex.

Hybrid Approaches and Final Tips

You’re not locked into just hard or soft. we can use hybrid strategies:

• Hard-enforce the easy Dirichlet boundaries
• Soft-enforce Neumann conditions or mixed-type interfaces
• Use adaptive weighting when soft enforcement dominates

Also:

• Always monitor BC violation errors during training
• Don’t blindly trust PDE residual convergence — your BCs might still be off
• Visualize the solution with and without boundary overlays

Final Thoughts

Boundary conditions aren’t a footnote — they’re structural constraints that define the space of valid solutions. In PINNs, you have the freedom — and the responsibility — to decide how to enforce them.

My advice is simple:

• If you can enforce BCs hard — do it.
• If not, be careful with your soft loss weights, and always validate the boundary separately.
• Don’t assume “low PDE loss” means everything is good — always check the boundary.

Understanding this single design decision can massively improve the realism, stability, and trustworthiness of your PINN models.

Hard vs Soft Boundary Conditions - Want to Learn the Actual Implementation??

Dive into real code, output transforms, and loss balancing. No theory fluff — just clear, practical implementation inside the PINNs Masterclass..

Enroll Now →