Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a response theory probe, grounded in linear response theory and Koopman operator theory, to rigorously validate learned stochastic AI simulators beyond forecast skill and long-run statistics. The probe tests whether emulators correctly respond to external forcing, a crucial property for projection and attribution studies, by comparing their forced responses to unperturbed correlations. On the Lorenz-63 system, a sparse-regression model with an appropriate feature library passed all checks, while other architectures showed dissociations between invariant statistics and response fidelity, highlighting the impact of training formulation.
Learned AI simulators can pass standard forecast metrics yet fundamentally fail to capture system dynamics, as demonstrated by a new response theory probe that reveals critical divergences in forced responses.
Machine-learning emulators of chaotic and stochastic systems are usually validated on forecast skill and long-run statistics. Neither certifies that an emulator responds correctly to forcing, the property that projection and attribution studies rely on. Linear response theory makes this testable: the forced response follows from unperturbed correlations through a generalized fluctuation-dissipation relation, and decomposes over the stochastic Ruelle-Pollicott resonances of the Koopman generator. Building on the Koopmanism Response framework, we turn this into a calibrated, mode-resolved test for learned surrogates: each surrogate rollout passes or fails each check, and failure rates are compared with those of independent realizations of the true system. On stochastic Lorenz-63, a three-variable toy model, we evaluate SINDy, an MLP, a reservoir computer, a neural ODE and a neural SDE with learned diffusion, over up to 80 rollouts each. A sparse-regression model with the correct library passes every check at rates consistent with the true system. Invariant-statistics fidelity and response fidelity dissociate in both directions: a quarter of reservoir-computer rollouts pass every invariant-statistics check and match the static susceptibility $χ(0)$, yet misrepresent the slow relaxation modes, while the neural ODE and SDE rarely meet the invariant-statistics floor but recover those modes in three quarters of rollouts. As expected of a time-integrated quantity dominated here by fast relaxation, $χ(0)$ does not separate these cases. For a fixed network, the training formulation (one-step drift, flow map, or multi-step through the integrator) decides which of these properties it gets right.