SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.21059

The Cost of a Physics Prior Is Bounded by the Ablation Gap

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Boris Kriuk. 2026-08-21. The Cost of a Physics Prior Is Bounded by the Ablation Gap. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21059

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI