See, Hypothesize, Validate: Multimodal Agentic Framework for Discovering Governing PDEs
Organizations: Department of Applied Mechanics Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India Yardi School of Artificial Intelligence (ScAI) Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India
Abstract
Discovering governing partial differential equations (PDEs) from observational data remains a core challenge across the sciences. Existing sparse-regression, symbolic-regression, and LLM-based approaches can be constrained by predefined libraries, noise sensitivity, hallucination, or limited iterative refinement. We introduce MAGE (Multimodal Agentic Governing Equation Discovery), an agentic framework that organizes PDE discovery as a confidence governed hypothesis validation loop inspired by the scientific cycle of observation, hypothesis, and falsification. Four role-specialized agents collaborate: a Differential Observer computing derivatives and diagnostic visualizations; a VLM-powered Phenomenology Extractor distilling qualitative cues from multimodal diagnostics; an LLM-driven Governing Law Synthesizer proposing candidates without a predefined library; and an Equation Arbiter fitting coefficients and assigning confidence scores. Discovery iterates until the top candidate clears a user-specified threshold, providing a structured process with an explicit accept-reject protocol. On the evaluated canonical PDE suite, MAGE obtains 8/8 exact structural recovery and the lowest coefficient error among the compared methods on 7/8 systems, with improvements of up to 4 orders of magnitude and a geometric-mean improvement of approximately 3 orders of magnitude. The pipeline also recovers the expected operators in two complex geometries and, on one laboratory sensor record, selects a cubic restoring-force model with held-out . These results support further study of structured agentic reasoning for library-free governing-law discovery, while broader generalization remains to be evaluated.
Figures & tables
| Aggregate summary | PF | SGA | WS | WI | PSR | PR | L4E | EG | MAGE | |
| Exact (%) | 42.9 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 85.7 | 71.4 | 100.0 | |
| Fail (%) | 57.1 | 85.7 | 71.4 | 57.1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 0.0 | |
| 5.04e-2 | 4.70e-2 | 2.18e-2 | 8.90e-4 | 2.49e2 | 4.49e4 | 3.13e-2 | 6.93e-2 | 7.96e-7 | ||
| Characteristic | Spur. | High- | Unstable | Sensitive | Severe | Failed | Strong | Moderate | Best tested | |
| Per-equation results | Method | |||||||||
| Equation | Metric | PF | SGA | WS | WI | PSR | PR | L4E | EG | MAGE |
| Coefficient error | Structural error ( MT ET ) | |||||||||||
| Equation | 0% | 1% | 2% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 0% | 1% | 2% | 5% | 10% | 15% |
| NLS | 8.10e-5 | 1.2e-4 | 2.4e-4 | 1.21e-3 | 3.63e-3 | 6.34e-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PDE-Divide | 2.36e-4 | 1.71e-2 | 2.96e0 | 3.10e0 | 3.09e0 | 3.34e0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| KdV | 4.93e-6 | 1.0e-4 | 7.5e-4 | 7.95e-3 | 3.28e-2 | 1.44e-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| KS | 1.73e-6 | 9.1e-4 | 1.75e-3 | 5.12e-3 | 1.79e-3 | 2.16e-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Burgers | 8.0e-6 | 1.46e-3 | 3.31e-3 | 1.15e-3 | 2.88e-2 | 1.35e-2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Axis | Best setting | Portability | Limit |
| VLM | KIMI-K2.5 gives the top NLS evidence score (4.8/5). | Gemma-4-31B [ 35 ] scores 4.7/5; Qwen-122B/397B [ 36 ] are competitive. | Near/sub-12B VLMs add shock, transport, or potential cues in this test. |
| LLM | GLM-5.1: rank-1 exact NLS, broadest true-term recall (9/10). | 6/8 tested LLMs recover exact NLS at rank 1. | Weaker or smaller LLMs need extra iterations or produce cluttered candidate pools here. |
| Pipeline | KIMI-K2.5 VLM + GLM-5.1 LLM is the cleanest tested pair. | Several mid/large alternatives also succeed with Agent 4 filtering. | Evidence for sub-12B backends is limited to easier tested cases. |
| Configuration | Best selected PDE | Reward | NRMSE | Confidence | Final status | |
| Agent 2 enabled | 1.000000 | 0.856864 | 0.000000 | 99.999977% | SUCCESS | |
| Agent 2 disabled | 0.252858 | 0.230022 | 0.864374 | 13.56% | EXHAUSTED |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Panel A: VLM evidence quality for NLS | |||||
| VLM evidence source | Rank | Score | Correct NLS cues recovered | Misleading cues | Component interpretation |
| KIMI-K2.5 | 1 | 4.8/5 | Breathing bound-state pattern, closed peak tracks, linear – branches, reversible spectral exchange, entropy oscillations, and no shocks. | Mild time-varying-coupling cue. | Richest evidence for smooth conservative NLS dynamics, with a small overinterpretation risk. |
| Gemma-4-31B | 2 | 4.7/5 | Smooth symmetric peaks, closed tracks, tight – dispersion, periodic and entropy. | None material. | Cleanest evidence for a smooth dispersive breather. |
| Qwen-3.5-397B | 3 | 4.5/5 | Localized breathing, low- spectral modulation, periodic entropy, explicit “nonlinear balance” cue. | Hints at localized/variable dynamics and clipping. | Strong NLS description; slight risk of trap/potential terms. |
| Qwen-3.5-122B | 4 | 4.0/5 | High-amplitude temporal events, diagonal dispersion branches, low- energy bursts, entropy inversely tied to coherent states. | Suggests potential wells and time-dependent forcing. | Good phenomenology, slightly less parsimonious than Qwen-397B. |
| Nemotron-Nano-12B-VL [ 37 ] | 5 | 3.0/5 | Recognizes cross-shaped dispersion and periodic spectral entropy. | Missing a global mechanism summary; emphasizes transient/phase-velocity cues. | Useful spectral evidence but incomplete as a synthesis prior. |
| Panel B: LLM final-candidate audit with fixed KIMI-K2.5 VLM evidence | |||||
| LLM | Iter. | Best PDE | True-term candidates | Overcomplete among true-term candidates | Dominant spurious terms or residual risk |
| DeepSeek-V4-Flash [ 39 ] | 1 | Exact | 5/10 | 4/5 | Rank-1 exact; extras add , , or with near-zero coefficients. |
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | 1 | Exact | 4/10 | 3/4 | Rank-1 exact; extras include , , and . |
| GLM-5.1 | 1 | Exact | 9/10 | 8/9 | Rank-1 exact, but the pool is broad: , , , , , , , and derivative-NLS variants remain. |
| Minimax-M2.7 [ 40 ] | 1 | Exact | 6/10 | 4/6 | Two clean equivalent forms; extras add , , , or . |
| GPT-OSS [ 41 ] | 1 | Exact | 8/10 | 6/8 | Broad true-term recall, but many overcomplete variants: , , , , , and . |
| Variant | Run | Confidence | Final best PDE | |
| With Agent 2 | 1 | 0.999880 | 98.90 | |
| With Agent 2 | 2 | 0.999056 | 96.93 | |
| With Agent 2 | 3 | 1.000000 | 100.00 | |
| With Agent 2 | 4 | 1.000000 | 100.00 | |
| With Agent 2 | 5 | 0.999999 | 99.90 | |
| Without Agent 2 | 1 | 0.252858 | 13.56 |
| Noise | FD verdict | FD | FD reward | FD conf. | WF verdict | WF | WF reward | WF conf. |
| Accept | Accept | |||||||
| Reject | Accept | |||||||
| Reject | Accept | |||||||
| Reject | Accept | |||||||
| Reject | Accept | |||||||
| Mean | – | – |
| Noise | FD final best PDE | WF final best PDE |
| Noise | Rel. err. | Rel. err. | Extra selected term | ||
| none | |||||
| none | |||||
| none | |||||
| none |
| Noise | range | range | range | ||
| Removed evidence | Rounds | Status | Confidence | Best validated PDE |
| None (full panel) | 1 | Success | 100.00% | |
| contour | 3 | Exhausted | 55.26% | |
| entropy | 3 | Exhausted | 49.88% | |
| – spectrum | 3 | Exhausted | 52.27% | |
| Extrema trajectories | 3 | Exhausted | 45.96% | |
| contour | 3 | Exhausted | 46.77% |