Where Is My Physics Wrong? Localized and Identifiable Discovery of Model Discrepancy
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Hybrid models combine trusted physics with data-driven correction, but a physical model is rarely wrong everywhere or in the same way. The key diagnostic question is local: where does the model fail, what missing mechanism explains the failure, and is the evidence statistically real? Existing sparse-discovery and discrepancy-learning methods usually fit one global correction, which can spread a local error into clean regimes, bias trusted physical parameters, and provide no calibrated significance for selected terms. We introduce LISDD, Localized, Identifiable Sparse Discovery of Discrepancy, a framework that localizes model error to an operating regime, identifies a sparse symbolic form for the missing mechanism, and certifies the discovery with an exact finite-sample test. LISDD fits the known physics on an automatically detected clean regime, flags discrepant regions with a calibrated residual-energy statistic, selects the local missing term by exhaustive holdout over a candidate library, and confirms significance with a sample-split F-test. A false-discovery-rate extension handles multiple discrepant regions with different missing mechanisms. In controlled experiments, LISDD keeps physical-parameter bias at 0.002 versus 0.43 for global-discrepancy and black-box baselines, raises localization F1 from 0.44 to 0.80, recovers the correct symbolic form with probability one, attains exact detection, and controls the multi-region false-discovery rate while recovering every planted mechanism. The result is a calibrated diagnostic tool for grey-box building-energy models when a fixed physical law silently breaks in one operating regime.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.
Builds on
3 of 21 references.
References · 3
- 2020Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biasescited by 344
- 2022Discrepancy Modeling Framework: Learning missing physics, modeling systematic residuals, and disambiguating between deterministic and random effectscited by 15
- 2021Discovery of interpretable structural model errors by combining Bayesian sparse regression and data assimilation: A chaotic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky test casecited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.