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

arXiv:2608.21059v1 Announce Type: new 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.

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.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2608.21059 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.21059v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21059 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.

analiza aiqbench

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

Subiecte conexe