Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration

Summary

arXiv:2610.22379v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Calibrating expensive engineering simulators requires tuning model parameters to match reference data, a process heavily constrained by computational costs. This study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs), conditioned on physical diagnostic descriptions of simulation errors, can propose informative parameter updates more efficiently than conventional derivative-free optimizers. We test this on a cylinder-wake Large-Eddy Simulation and a damped-oscillator inverse problem. Physics-labeled prompts are evaluated against four text ablations (removed, anonymized, padded, misdirected) and standard optimizers (Nelder-Mead, Bayesian optimization, CMA-ES, and random search). Results demonstrate a strong early semantic advantage: the first…

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Ruo-Qian Wang
When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 1 Oct 2026]

Title:When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration

View a PDF of the paper titled When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration, by Ruo-Qian Wang

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Calibrating expensive engineering simulators requires tuning model parameters to match reference data, a process heavily constrained by computational costs. This study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs), conditioned on physical diagnostic descriptions of simulation errors, can propose informative parameter updates more efficiently than conventional derivative-free optimizers. We test this on a cylinder-wake Large-Eddy Simulation and a damped-oscillator inverse problem. Physics-labeled prompts are evaluated against four text ablations (removed, anonymized, padded, misdirected) and standard optimizers (Nelder-Mead, Bayesian optimization, CMA-ES, and random search). Results demonstrate a strong early semantic advantage: the first physics-informed LLM proposal improves the initial design in 23 of 25 trials. After five evaluations, the median calibration error is 21.9 times lower than physics-free controls. However, this advantage is transient - disappearing by fifteen evaluations - and inherent LLM decoder variability yields a 9.8-fold performance spread. To address this, we introduce a hybrid workflow that uses the LLM as a warm-start, passing accumulated evaluations to a conventional optimizer. This two-stage numerical continuation policy reaches target accuracy in just 9 simulator runs, outperforming the LLM alone (12 runs), Nelder-Mead (17 runs), and Bayesian optimization (>60 runs). Supported by sensitivity analysis validating the test cases, this hybrid physics-labeled LLM scheme proves highly effective as a calibration agent under strict evaluation budgets.

Comments: Submitted to Engineering Application of Artificial Intelligence

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.22379 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.22379v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.22379

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Ruo-Qian Wang [view email] [v1] Thu, 1 Oct 2026 16:08:53 UTC (1,305 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled When is a large language model a good calibration agent? Physics-labeled prompting for budgeted engineering simulator calibration, by Ruo-Qian Wang

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

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.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2610.22379v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Calibrating expensive engineering simulators requires tuning model parameters to match reference data, a process heavily constraine…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.