Evaluating Dynamical Fidelity through Predictive Structure in Physical Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine-learning models for physical systems are currently evaluated primarily through errors between predicted and reference states and, increasingly, through tests of physical consistency. These metrics assess whether predictions are accurate and satisfy selected physical requirements, but provide limited insight into whether learned trajectories reproduce the underlying dynamics. Domain experts examine such relationships through physical representations that expose relevant processes, interactions, and responses, but these analyses are often separated from typical machine-learning evaluation. We introduce a practical framework for evaluating dynamical fidelity through predictive structure in physical representation spaces. Experts define the representations, while reference trajectories determine which relationships are predictive and retained as evaluation tests. We demonstrate the approach in atmospheric forecasting using ERA5 representations of planetary-wave activity and Northern Annular Mode evolution, and evaluate Pangu-Weather, GraphCast, and FengWu. The models exhibit distinct departures from reference predictive structure that are not reflected by conventional forecast errors. The framework thereby turns domain-expert representations into systematic tests of learned physical dynamics without prescribing the relationships in advance.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.
Builds on
18 of 39 references.
References · 18
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
- 2020Learning to Simulate Complex Physics with Graph Networkscited by 880
- 2020Learning Mesh-Based Simulation with Graph Networkscited by 868
- 2019Hamiltonian Neural Networkscited by 712
- 2021E(3)-Equivariant Graph Neural Networks for Data-Efficient and Accurate Interatomic Potentialscited by 708
- 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 496
- 2023Neural General Circulation Models for Weather and Climatecited by 239
- 2023WeatherBench 2: A benchmark for the next generation of data-driven global weather modelscited by 236
- 2023FengWu: Pushing the Skillful Global Medium-range Weather Forecast beyond 10 Days Leadcited by 175
- 2019Machine learning for molecular simulationcited by 110
- 2023Learning Physical Models that Can Respect Conservation Lawscited by 59
- 2024Can AI weather models predict out-of-distribution gray swan tropical cyclones?cited by 26
6 more
- 2023Dynamical Tests of a Deep-Learning Weather Prediction Modelcited by 24
- 2023Harnessing the Power of Neural Operators with Automatically Encoded Conservation Lawscited by 24
- 2026PhysMetrics.Weather: An Evaluation Framework for Physical Consistency in ML Weather Modelscited by 5
- 2022A Numerical Proof of Shell Model Turbulence Closurecited by 2
- 2023Evaluating the Transferability of Machine-Learned Force Fields for Material Property Modelingcited by 2
- 2026Investigating Inductive Biases for Machine Learning Emulation of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings in Idealised Isca Simulationscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.