Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper demonstrates that transferring relational structure learned from forward-dynamics simulations to inverse problems, even when theoretically justified by edge accuracy, systematically fails to improve performance. The authors show that Neural Relational Inference (NRI) learned structure degrades performance significantly on a source-localization task compared to task-optimized baselines and physics-based priors. This failure is attributed to approximation errors not captured by edge-accuracy metrics, and a lightweight transferability test is proposed to predict successful structure transfer.
Learned relational structure from dynamics fails to transfer to inverse problems, even when edge accuracy is high, due to uncaptured approximation errors.
A natural strategy for inverse problems with scarce labelled data is to transfer relational structure learned from abundant forward-simulation data. We show this strategy fails systematically, even when it satisfies the standard theoretical justification for why structure should help. We prove that approximate structure provides estimation-error benefits whenever the edge error satisfies $Δ< n^2 - kn$, reducing sample complexity from $O(n^2)$ to $O(kn+Δ)$. Structure learned via Neural Relational Inference (NRI) from dynamics prediction satisfies this condition, yet on a source-localisation task across 180 CFD-simulated hydrogen-leak scenarios and 180 acoustic scenarios, it degrades performance by 116% and 201% relative to a flexible, task-optimised attention baseline, while a physics-based prior (Green's function) degrades by only 69-72%. Four independent lines of evidence show this is not a tuning failure: NRI improves only 0.5% when given 18x more training data (versus 16.6% for the task-optimised baseline, $p<0.001$); performance is insensitive to the NRI edge threshold across a wide range; the dynamics-learned graph overlaps the task-optimal graph on only 6% of edges; and two further dynamics-derived structure estimators (correlation- and mutual-information-based) show no measurable benefit over a structure-free baseline, with the correlation-based estimator performing markedly worse. We formalise this gap as a statement about approximation error that the edge-accuracy condition cannot control, and we provide a lightweight transferability test (Jaccard similarity against a partially-observed target-task graph) that separates successful from failed transfer in all four domain/structure pairs we evaluate, using under an hour of computation and 15-20% of target-domain data; we present this as a heuristic calibrated on few cases, not a validated general threshold.