Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Physics-Audited Agentic SciML (PA-SciML), a novel workflow that enhances the discovery of surrogate models in scientific machine learning by integrating physics verification into the model selection process. By establishing machine-checkable physics requirements and conducting rigorous evaluations of candidate models against these criteria, PA-SciML ensures that selected surrogates not only minimize error but also adhere to essential physical principles. The results demonstrate that PA-SciML can yield surrogates with lower validation errors while satisfying critical physics checks, outperforming traditional error-only baselines in both static elasticity and transient elastodynamics scenarios.
Surrogate models that pass rigorous physics checks can outperform traditional error-only approaches, revealing critical insights into model reliability in scientific applications.
In agentic scientific machine learning (SciML), large language model (LLM) agents can discover surrogate models and select one by an automated score, typically an error metric. A low error, however, does not establish that the predicted fields satisfy the physics that matter for mechanics, such as boundary conditions, superposition, stiffness scaling, or causality. We introduce Physics-Audited Agentic SciML (PA-SciML), a verification-first workflow for agentic SciML discovery. The workflow fixes a scoring evaluator before search, derives reviewable machine-checkable physics requirements, checks each trained candidate on its outputs, and separately searches prescribed input ranges or measured load-history spans for high-violation cases without reference solution fields. A surrogate is reported as verified only under the stated checks. When enabled, the workflow also adds advisory numerical probes before training and tests one modeling change at a time to record which isolated edits are associated with score gains before reuse. In the reported computational-solid-mechanics numerical examples, the static elasticity run selects a surrogate with lower validation error than the error-only baseline while both selected models pass the common linear-elastic checks. In the transient elastodynamics run, an error-only baseline with similar mean error fails a stricter causality check by responding to future parts of the loading history, while the selected surrogate passes the stated checks. The main distinction is per-candidate physics evidence on predicted fields, not a richer aggregate score.
