Michael Shields

Cornelius Otchere, Michael Shields

Physics-Informed Neural Networks inherently suffer from task interference because they rely on a shared parameter space to satisfy both governing differential equations and boundary conditions. We analyze this structural conflict using the Fisher Information Matrix to quantify the effective degrees of freedom ($d_{eff}$) in a physics-constrained model. Unlike the classical $d_{eff}$ which measures how many parameter directions are informed by data against a statistical prior, our $d_{eff}$ measures the dimension of the parameter directions unconstrained by the differential operator. For operators with finite-dimensional kernel, we show that $d_{eff}$ converges to the kernel dimension exactly, independent of network width, depth, or activation function, recasting it from a fit diagnostic into a structural invariant of the underlying continuous operator. For operators with infinite-dimensional kernel, $d_{eff}$ instead measures the network's finite-dimensional representational bandwidth for that kernel rather than recovering an integer invariant. Importantly, $d_{eff}$ also serves as an a priori structural diagnostic. Driving $d_{eff}$ of a well-posed problem to zero certifies that the physics and boundary constraints have absorbed the network's free directions. Building on this characterization, we introduce subspace projection strategies for boundary adaptation. Rather than retraining from scratch, we project parameter updates into the null space of the pre-trained physics operator so that new boundary conditions are satisfied without disturbing the learned physics. Gradient-based fine-tuning can match or exceed this but needs more wall-clock time and tuning, whereas subspace projection delivers near-equivalent quality in seconds to minutes. We validate on linear and nonlinear operators, demonstrating accurate adaptation to initial and boundary shifts and unencountered constraint types.

Ziyang Huang, Yi Cao, Ali K. Shargh et al.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 54.1%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.