Sparse probes and murky physics: a case study of interpretability challenges in a foundation model for continuum dynamics
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Sparse probes and murky physics: a case study of interpretability challenges in a foundation model for continuum dynamics
Abstract:Generative AI emulators are increasingly used in scientific domains where we already have strong theory, benchmarks, and physical intuition. This raises a central evaluation and interpretability question: when a foundation-style model can reproduce known continuum dynamics, what internal mechanism supports that behavior, is the internal behaviour consistent with known physics, and how does it relate to where the emulator succeeds or fails? We investigate a cross-domain foundation model for continuum dynamics, Walrus by Polymathic, using mechanistic interpretability guided by physical principles. We apply a sparse autoencoder (SAE) to probe a selected layer, and address the practical challenge of triaging a large feature set (over 20,000) using enstrophy as a physically grounded metric. As a deliberately simple testbed, we focus on shear flow and compare feature recruitment across multiple shear-flow setups, i.e. parameter values in the numerical simulation. Across setups we find evidence of piecewise consistency, with subsets of features recurring in similar roles, but this structure is intermittent and does not map cleanly onto standard physical decompositions. In parallel, direct comparisons between numerical simulation and the emulator reveal systematic output-level discrepancies, including regimes where energy/structures become too diffuse or too localized. We connect parts of these discrepancies to changes in specific SAE feature usage. Our work highlights open questions for scientific foundation models: how to robustly prioritize mechanistically meaningful features, how to separate stable structure from analysis artifacts (including single-layer and SAE limitations), and how to use established benchmarks to decide when "different" internal representations are genuinely informative rather than merely effective.
| Comments: | 8 pages, 5 figures |
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.11657 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2606.11657v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.11657
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
|
| Journal reference: | ICLR 2026 Workshop on Foundation Models for Science |
Submission history
From: Katherine Rosenfeld [view email][v1] Wed, 10 Jun 2026 04:38:45 UTC (14,766 KB)
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
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.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Restless bandits with imperfect binary feedback: PCL-indexability analysis and computation
Jun 11
-
Few-Shot Resampling for Scalable Statistically-Sound Data Mining
Jun 11
-
Physics-informed generative AI for semiconductor manufacturing: Enforcing hard physical constraints in generative models by construction
Jun 11
-
Mechanical Field Networks: Structured Neural Dynamics for Multivariate Systems
Jun 11
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.