mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Judge Agent Closes the Reliability Gap in AI-Generated Scientific Simulation

arXiv 2603.25780 ↗First posted 26 Mar 2026cs.SE cs.LGcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models can generate scientific simulation code, but the generated code silently fails on most non-textbook problems. We show that classical mathematical validation -- well-posedness, convergence, and error certification -- can be fully automated by a Judge Agent, reducing the silent-failure rate from 42% to 1.5% across 134 test cases spanning 12 scientific domains. The headline result comes from a prospective benchmark: 72 blinded tasks submitted by 12 independent scientists yield an 89% success rate (95% CI: [80%, 95%]) with automated error bounds, versus 53% without the Judge. On clinical CT (the only powered experiment, n = 200), the pipeline reaches 99% of expert quality. The residual 1.5% concentrates at bifurcation points where certifiability breaks down. We formalize this boundary through the simulability class S and introduce spec.md, a structured specification format that makes any scientific computation problem machine-readable and solver-independent. Code, data, and all 72 benchmark tasks are publicly archived.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 2 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2026.

Builds on

2 of 55 references.

References · 2

  1. 2019DeepXDE: A deep learning library for solving differential equationscited by 619
  2. 2024SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientistscited by 178

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Agentic Scientific Simulation: Execution-Grounded Model Construction and Reconstruction
  2. 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap
  3. 2026An Agentic Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Scientific Code in PETSc
  4. 2026Training AI Scientists to Replicate Research
  5. 2026Though Language Models Err While They Strive: Conformal Prediction for Self-Correcting Scientific Generation
  6. 2026MDGYM: Benchmarking AI Agents on Molecular Simulations
  7. 2026Plausible but Wrong: A case study on Agentic Failures in Astrophysical Workflows
  8. 2025From Reproduction to Replication: Evaluating Research Agents with Progressive Code Masking