mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Adversarial Vulnerabilities in Neural Operator Digital Twins: Gradient-Free Attacks on Nuclear Thermal-Hydraulic Surrogates

arXiv 2603.22525 ↗First posted 23 Mar 2026cs.LG cs.CRcited by 4

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

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  2. 2019Robust Learning with Jacobian Regularizationcited by 129
  3. 2021Online Adversarial Purification based on Self-Supervisioncited by 46
  4. 2024State-space models are accurate and efficient neural operators for dynamical systemscited by 28
  5. 2022PIAT: Physics Informed Adversarial Training for Solving Partial Differential Equationscited by 4
  6. 2025Agentic Physical AI toward a Domain-Specific Foundation Model for Energy Systems: A Case Study on Nuclear Reactor Controlcited by 3
  7. 2023PINNsFailureRegion Localization and Refinement through White-box AdversarialAttackcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.