The Cost of a Physics Prior Is Bounded by the Ablation Gap
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Shape-constrained and physics-informed learning reports an accuracy cost of enforcing a prior and treats it as a property of the prior. We show it is mostly a property of the free features and the validation split. Let P be the excess risk of restricting a hypothesis class to functions with a shape constraint on features S, and D the excess risk of the ablated model that ignores S. Because a function constant in x_j is both non-decreasing and non-increasing in x_j, the ablated class is contained in the constrained class, so 0 <= P <= D for every risk functional, with no convexity, smoothness, or realizability assumption. Empirically the bound is a sign test: a constrained model must never be beaten by its own ablation. We instantiate it on an ordinal wildfire-severity task (N = 26,681, K = 3) with hard monotone constraints on four meteorological drivers, coordinates left free, and a validation ladder from i.i.d. resampling to 2-degree spatial blocking. Coordinates act as a shield: alone they recover 92.9% of the full model's macro-F1 under spatial blocking, collapsing D from 0.1288 to 0.0427; the same prior costs 0.0473 shielded and 0.3470 unshielded, a ratio of 7.3 with identical physics. Because D is protocol-dependent it does not transfer: coarsening blocks from 1 to 10 degrees drives D from 0.0942 to 0.0050, leaving two configurations unidentifiable a priori. Inversions of the certified nesting bound the pipeline's additive resolution: over 318 comparisons they give a self-calibrating floor of 0.0220 macro-F1, below which no reported price is interpretable, including four cells in our own headline grid. Cost and compliance are independent: the unconstrained model violates the prior at rate 0.48-0.49 while enforcing it costs 0.0473. We give a two-fit screen that rejects unidentifiable experiments before a constrained model is trained.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.
Builds on
20 of 35 references.
References · 20
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2021Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networkscited by 632
- 2021Accounting for Variance in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 195
- 2020Integrating Scientific Knowledge with Machine Learning for Engineering and Environmental Systemscited by 160
- 2017Deep Lattice Networks and Partial Monotonic Functionscited by 62
- 2020Certified Monotonic Neural Networkscited by 51
- 2015Monotonic Calibrated Interpolated Look-Up Tablescited by 35
- 2020Predicting into unknown space? Estimating the area of applicability of spatial prediction modelscited by 28
- 2019Importance of spatial predictor variable selection in machine learning applications -- Moving from data reproduction to spatial predictioncited by 24
- 2018Monotonic classification: an overview on algorithms, performance measures and data setscited by 18
- 2020Deontological Ethics By Monotonicity Shape Constraintscited by 16
8 more
- 2025ELENA: Epigenetic Learning through Evolved Neural Adaptationcited by 5
- 2025Advancing Eurasia Fire Understanding Through Machine Learning Techniquescited by 4
- 2025MorphBoost: Self-Organizing Universal Gradient Boosting with Adaptive Tree Morphingcited by 3
- 2026POSEIDON: Physics-Optimized Seismic Energy Inference and Detection Operating Networkcited by 3
- 2025DeepSupp: Attention-Driven Correlation Pattern Analysis for Dynamic Time Series Support and Resistance Levels Identificationcited by 2
- 2025Hybrid Physics-ML Framework for Pan-Arctic Permafrost Infrastructure Risk at Record 2.9-Million Observation Scalecited by 2
- 2026Artificial Adaptive Intelligence: The Missing Stage Between Narrow and General Intelligencecited by 2
- 2026ORCA -- Online Regime Correlation Analyzercited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.