GAV: A scientific experimentation environment for PDE agents
Organizations: Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto · Vector Institute
Abstract
Reliable feedback is essential for coding agents to develop programs for partial differential equations (PDEs). Yet evaluating these programs on new PDE problems often requires expensive reference computations, while fixed datasets restrict the range of experiments. We introduce Generator-Agent-Verifier (GAV), a scientific experimentation environment that makes new PDE problems verifiable by construction. The Generator learns a distribution of continuous reference solutions using data from numerical simulations or experimental measurements to represent a target physical regime. Using the method of manufactured solutions, it works backward from the generated reference solutions to construct matching PDE problems without a separate numerical solve. The Agent designs experiments, investigates failures, and iteratively improves its program. The Verifier evaluates candidate programs against the reference solutions and provides numerical feedback on accuracy and computational cost. This feedback can also guide the generation of new problems that probe the current program's weaknesses. We provide a theoretical analysis of evaluation reliability and guided development. Experiments on Navier-Stokes and Vlasov-Poisson-type equations across different data sources and regimes demonstrate the effectiveness of GAV. In particular, on the numerical Navier-Stokes task, GAV reduces the mean test error of three existing PDE agents by more than an order of magnitude relative to their original setups. Code is available at https://github.com/PotatoJnny/PDE-GAV.
Figures & tables
| Method | Mean error (%) |
|---|---|
| COMSOL ( COMSOL AB, 2025 ) | 1.6352 |
| FEniCSx ( Baratta et al., 2023 ) | 0.3510 |
| Nektar++ ( Moxey et al., 2020 ) | 1.9042 |
| GAV-Full (ours) | 0.1046 |
| Task | Model | R1 error | R6 error | Reduction (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARTEMIS VP | Sol | 0.03961 | 0.02956 | 25.4 |
| ARTEMIS VP | Astra | 0.01074 | 0.002854 | 73.4 |
| Weak-collision VPFP | Sol | 0.189 | 0.1352 | 28.5 |
| Weak-collision VPFP | Astra | 0.2668 | 0.1274 | 52.2 |
| Strong-collision VPFP | Sol | 90.1 | ||
| Strong-collision VPFP | Astra | 86.6 |
| Environment | Mean error (%) | Error / GAV |
|---|---|---|
| GAV | 0.441 | 1.0 |
| w/o learning from data | 1.468 | 3.3 |
| w/o MMS construction | 0.988 | 2.2 |
| w/o continuous input queries | 5.211 | 11.8 |
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Setting | Numerical data | PIV data |
|---|---|---|
| Cosine basis functions per spatial axis | ||
| Chebyshev polynomial degree in time | ||
| Retained principal components | ||
| Batch size | ||
| Training steps | ||
| Checkpoint used (training step) | ||
| Quantity | Accepted range or bound |
|---|---|
| Joint relative macroscopic change | |
| Hermite-coefficient RMS change | |
| Relative source change | |
| Mean squared norm of added Hermite coefficients | |
| RMS change in coefficient time derivative | |
| Initial relative macroscopic change |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Error predictor | |
| Residual blocks | |
| Hidden width | |
| Embedding dimension for flow time | |
| Training steps | |
| Batch size | |
| Study | Coding model | Rounds | Time budget (h) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerical and PIV-derived NS | Sol | 5 | 4 |
| Kinetic tasks | Sol | 6 | 3 |
| Kinetic tasks | Astra | 6 | 3 |
| NS ablations | Sol | 3 | 2 |
| Study | Use | Size | Composition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerical NS (Section 4.2 ) | Selection, R2–R5 | 32 | 11 unguided, 11 guided, 10 perturbed |
| Test | 32 | 11 unguided, 11 guided, 10 perturbed | |
| PIV-derived NS (Section 4.2 ) | Selection per round | 192 | 64 unguided, 64 guided, 64 perturbed |
| Test | 768 | 256 unguided, 256 guided, 256 perturbed | |
| Existing PDE agents (Section 4.3 ) | Initial development | 64 | Generated NS problems shared across environments |
| NS comparisons (Sections 4.3 and 4.4 ) | Selection | 24 | 8 unguided, 8 guided, 8 perturbed |
| Method | Original | GAV | GAV-Full |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodePDE | 11.77 | 5.59 | 8.52 |
| AutoNumerics | 13.22 | 9.71 | 8.61 |
| PDE-SHARP | 20.80 | 13.44 | 12.36 |
| Agent setting | Environment | Mean error (%) |
| Multi-turn setting | GAV-Full | 0.1256 |
| CodePDE | Original | 3.1231 |
| GAV | 0.1890 | |
| GAV-Full | 1.0555 | |
| AutoNumerics | Original | 3.4970 |
| GAV | 0.3086 |
| Environment | Mean error (%) |
|---|---|
| GAV | 0.440 |
| w/o learning from data | 1.561 |
| w/o MMS construction | 0.864 |
| w/o continuous input queries | 5.915 |
| Family | Model | S0 | R1 | R6 | Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARTEMIS VP | Sol | 0.1044 | 0.007703 | 0.005259 | -31.73 |
| ARTEMIS VP | Astra | 0.1044 | +469.09 | ||
| Weak VPFP | Sol | 0.5652 | 0.08331 | 0.03437 | -58.74 |
| Weak VPFP | Astra | 0.5652 | 0.3857 | 0.2211 | -42.68 |
| Strong VPFP | Sol | 0.2054 | 0.001883 | -77.52 | |
| Strong VPFP | Astra | 0.2054 | -85.22 |
| ARTEMIS VP | Weak VPFP | Strong VPFP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round | Sol | Astra | Sol | Astra | Sol | Astra |
| S0 | 0.1044 | 0.1044 | 0.5652 | 0.5652 | 0.2054 | 0.2054 |
| R1 | 0.007703 | 0.08331 | 0.3857 | 0.001883 | ||
| R2 | 0.007637 | 0.03311 | 0.2143 | 0.001846 | ||
| R3 | 0.005257 | 0.03297 | 0.2882 | 0.001845 | ||
| R4 | 0.005259 | 0.03458 | 0.2882 | 0.001845 | ||
| Task | Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARTEMIS VP | Sol | 0.002574 | 0.01625 | 0.008603 | 0.002552 | |
| ARTEMIS VP | Astra | |||||
| Weak VPFP | Sol | 0.001524 | 0.008831 | 0.009259 | 0.01128 | 0.1118 |
| Weak VPFP | Astra | 0.041 | 0.4014 | 0.2016 | 0.09325 | 0.3682 |
| Strong VPFP | Sol | 0.001203 | ||||
| Strong VPFP | Astra |
PDE Solving
PDE solving develops numerical and learned methods to approximate solutions of partial differential equations across scientific applications.
See all 250 papers