资讯

When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration

📅 2026-10-19 ⏱️ 约 7 分钟阅读 ✍️ AI导航编辑部 🔗 arxiv.org
When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration
📝 内容摘要

Computer Science > Machine Learning [Submitted on 1 Oct 2026] Title:When is a large language model a good calibrat

📌 核心要点

  • Computer Science > Machine Learning
  • [Submitted on 1 Oct 2026]
  • Title:When is a large language model a good calibration agent

Computer Science > Machine Learning

[Submitted on 1 Oct 2026]

Title:When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration

View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract:Calibrating expensive engineering simulators requires tuning model parameters to match reference data, a process heavily constrained by computational costs. This study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs), conditioned on physical diagnostic descriptions of simulation errors, can propose informative parameter updates more efficiently than conventional derivative-free optimizers. We test this on a cylinder-wake Large-Eddy Simulation and a damped-oscillator inverse problem. Physics-labeled prompts are evaluated against four text ablations (removed, anonymized, padded, misdirected) and standard optimizers (Nelder-Mead, Bayesian optimization, CMA-ES, and random search). Results demonstrate a strong early semantic advantage: the first physics-informed LLM proposal improves the initial design in 23 of 25 trials. After five evaluations, the median calibration error is 21.9 times lower than physics-free controls. However, this advantage is transient - disappearing by fifteen evaluations - and inherent LLM decoder variability yields a 9.8-fold performance spread. To address this, we introduce a hybrid workflow that uses the LLM as a warm-start, passing accumulated evaluations to a conventional optimizer. This two-stage numerical continuation policy reaches target accuracy in just 9 simulator runs, outperforming the LLM alone (12 runs), Nelder-Mead (17 runs), and Bayesian optimization (>60 runs). Supported by sensitivity analysis validating the test cases, this hybrid physics-labeled LLM scheme proves highly effective as a calibration agent under strict evaluation budgets.

Additional Features

References & Citations

Loading...

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv Recommender

(What is IArxiv?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

来源arxiv.org· 本文为编辑整理,仅供参考