Adversarial Vulnerabilities in Neural Operator Digital Twins: Gradient-Free Attacks on Nuclear Thermal-Hydraulic Surrogates
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Operator learning models are rapidly emerging as the predictive core of digital twins for nuclear and energy systems, promising real-time field reconstruction from sparse sensor measurements. Yet their robustness to adversarial perturbations remains uncharacterized, a critical gap for deployment in safety-critical systems. Here we show that neural operators are acutely vulnerable to extremely sparse (fewer than 1% of inputs), physically plausible perturbations that exploit their sensitivity to boundary conditions. Using gradient-free differential evolution across four operator architectures, we demonstrate that minimal modifications trigger catastrophic prediction failures, increasing relative L2 error from ~1.5% (validated accuracy) to 37-63% while remaining completely undetectable by standard validation metrics. Notably, 100% of successful single-point attacks pass z-score anomaly detection. We introduce the effective perturbation dimension deff, a Jacobian-based diagnostic that, together with sensitivity magnitude, yields a two-factor vulnerability model explaining why architectures with extreme sensitivity concentration (POD-DeepONet, deff ≈ 1) are not necessarily the most exploitable, since low-rank output projections cap maximum error, while moderate concentration with sufficient amplification (S-DeepONet, deff ≈ 4) produces the highest attack success. Gradient-free search outperforms gradient-based alternatives (PGD) on architectures with gradient pathologies, while random perturbations of equal magnitude achieve near-zero success rates, confirming that the discovered vulnerabilities are structural. Our findings expose a previously overlooked attack surface in operator learning models and establish that these models require robustness guarantees beyond standard validation before deployment.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2026.
Builds on
7 of 45 references.
References · 7
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
- 2019Robust Learning with Jacobian Regularizationcited by 129
- 2021Online Adversarial Purification based on Self-Supervisioncited by 46
- 2024State-space models are accurate and efficient neural operators for dynamical systemscited by 28
- 2022PIAT: Physics Informed Adversarial Training for Solving Partial Differential Equationscited by 4
- 2025Agentic Physical AI toward a Domain-Specific Foundation Model for Energy Systems: A Case Study on Nuclear Reactor Controlcited by 3
- 2023PINNsFailureRegion Localization and Refinement through White-box AdversarialAttackcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Real-Time Sensing of Inaccessible Physical Fields via an Edge-Deployable Hardware-Portable Graph Neural Operatorcited by 4
- 2026Beyond Uniform Sampling: Synergistic Active Learning and Input Denoising for Robust Neural Operatorscited by 2
- 2026Neuromorphic Continual Learning for Sequential Deployment of Nuclear Plant Monitoring Systemscited by 1
- 2026Targeted search shows that random-device testing underestimates worst-case error in a simulated wave-based neural operatorcited by 0
- 2026Targeted search shows that random-device testing underestimates worst-case error in a simulated wave-based neural operator5 Oct 2026
- 2026Beyond Uniform Sampling: Synergistic Active Learning and Input Denoising for Robust Neural Operators14 Apr 2026
- 2026Neuromorphic Continual Learning for Sequential Deployment of Nuclear Plant Monitoring Systems13 Apr 2026
- 2026Real-Time Sensing of Inaccessible Physical Fields via an Edge-Deployable Hardware-Portable Graph Neural Operator2 Apr 2026