arXiv:2610.22379v1 Announce Type: cross
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.
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.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: