When a neural surrogate cannot accelerate a solver: runtime share, closed-loop drift, and the economics of uncertainty gating in a stiff coupled simulation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Learned surrogates for expensive inner solver blocks are a widely pursued route to faster multiphysics simulation. We report a controlled, end-to-end negative result and identify three structural barriers, none of them a deficiency of the network we trained. The testbed is the implicit Newton solve coupling energy-dependent neutrino radiation to matter in a general-relativistic radiation-hydrodynamics code, its most expensive physics routine per call. First, per-call cost and share of runtime are different quantities, and only the second bounds acceleration. An exclusive self-time profile puts the target block at 16.9% of critical-rank wall clock, capping any surrogate at ~1.2x by Amdahl's law. A surrogate 5.8x cheaper per call merely ties the solver, and the configuration stable enough to run without fallback reaches only parity. Second, offline accuracy cannot rank surrogates for deployment: across fourteen networks the pooled Spearman error-versus-survival correlation (rho = +0.73) is a between-family confound that vanishes under control (rho = -0.04). Third, a correct out-of-distribution gate cannot accelerate a loop that leaves its training distribution. We give the break-even deferral fraction in closed form: because the visited states sit 73x off the data manifold, the gate defers 96.8 to 99.7% of cells, almost invariant to surrogate quality. Including its own cost, the gated loop is a 0.94 to 0.96x slowdown. We further separate stability from fidelity: a never-crashing gated run accumulates a linear -19.9% density bias over 6000 steps. The error is a directed, ballistically accumulating bias, not the variance-driven divergence the autoregressive literature targets.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.
Builds on
8 of 34 references.
References · 8
- 2020Learning to Simulate Complex Physics with Graph Networkscited by 880
- 2021Machine learning accelerated computational fluid dynamicscited by 471
- 2022Message Passing Neural PDE Solverscited by 386
- 2020Solver-in-the-Loop: Learning from Differentiable Physics to Interact with Iterative PDE-Solverscited by 205
- 2024Weak baselines and reporting biases lead to overoptimism in machine learning for fluid-related partial differential equationscited by 91
- 2024Learning from Linear Algebra: A Graph Neural Network Approach to Preconditioner Design for Conjugate Gradient Solverscited by 15
- 2021Deep Learning of the Eddington Tensor in the Core-collapse Supernova Simulationcited by 1
- 2026Benchmarking Long Roll-outs of Auto-regressive Neural Operators for the Compressible Navier-Stokes Equations with Conserved Quantity Correctioncited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.