Unveiling Multi-regime Patterns in SciML: Distinct Failure Modes and Regime-specific Optimization

Scientific Machine Learning (SciML) methods such as Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (NODEs), Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs), and Universal Differential Equations (UDEs) are most effective when structural priors reflect reliable governing dynamics. We ask what happens when this assumption is violated. Using macroeconomic forecasting as a stress-test domain, we evaluate five model families, ARIMA, LSTM, NODE, PINN, and UDE, across 23 countries using sparse annual data, multiple temporal splits, and five random seeds. Our results show that none of the evaluated models achieve consistently strong forecasting performance, highlighting the difficulty of low-frequency macroeconomic prediction. However, a clear relative hierarchy emerges: less-constrained models, particularly ARIMA and NODE, consistently outperform more-constrained heuristic-prior models such as PINN and UDE. Rather than treating this as a rejection of SciML, we interpret it as a diagnostic result: structural priors can act as misregularizers when they do not match the data-generating process. We identify failure modes including prior misalignment, regime shifts, structural breaks, and optimization instability, and argue that SciML practitioners should test whether structure helps before assuming that more structure is beneficial.

In agentic scientific machine learning (SciML), large language model (LLM) agents can discover surrogate models and select one by an automated score, typically an error metric. A low error, however, does not establish that the predicted fields satisfy the physics that matter for mechanics, such as boundary conditions, superposition, stiffness scaling, or causality. We introduce Physics-Audited Agentic SciML (PA-SciML), a verification-first workflow for agentic SciML discovery. The workflow fixes a scoring evaluator before search, derives reviewable machine-checkable physics requirements, checks each trained candidate on its outputs, and separately searches prescribed input ranges or measured load-history spans for high-violation cases without reference solution fields. A surrogate is reported as verified only under the stated checks. When enabled, the workflow also adds advisory numerical probes before training and tests one modeling change at a time to record which isolated edits are associated with score gains before reuse. In the reported computational-solid-mechanics numerical examples, the static elasticity run selects a surrogate with lower validation error than the error-only baseline while both selected models pass the common linear-elastic checks. In the transient elastodynamics run, an error-only baseline with similar mean error fails a stricter causality check by responding to future parts of the loading history, while the selected surrogate passes the stated checks. The main distinction is per-candidate physics evidence on predicted fields, not a richer aggregate score.

Modern Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, especially large language models (LLMs), are increasingly used to generate scientific hypotheses and mechanistic explanations from observational data. This position paper argues that in the high-dimensional proxy regimes where modern ML excels, mechanistic learning is generically underdetermined: many incompatible mechanisms induce essentially the same observational relationships on the support of the data, so predictive success and coherent explanations are insufficient evidence of mechanism discovery. This underdetermination becomes uniquely hazardous with large language models (LLMs), which tend to collapse large equivalence classes of explanations into a single fluent narrative. This paper proposes concrete standards for ``mechanistic ML,'' and argues these norms are necessary if LLM-centered workflows are to support science rather than merely simulate it.