Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 30, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Neural emulators of chaotic PDEs are trained on one-step prediction but deployed autoregressively, where their errors compound. Jacobian-based regularisers aim to curb this growth, but in a chaotic system part of the growth is physical and cannot be trained away. We separate the two sources of this error with a first-order decomposition. We compare the emulator's error with a counterfactual that propagates the same one-step mistakes through the solver's Jacobian, giving an amplification ratio: the factor by which the model's own dynamics amplify its errors. We study 21 configurations across four PDEs, five architectures and two model sizes (8-10k and 33k parameters), with errors measured at one Lyapunov time. Jacobian fine-tuning reduced the error by more than 10% for 1 of 34 seeds whose amplification ratio was at most 1.25, and for all 20 seeds whose ratio was at least four; for the latter, the error fell by a factor of 8 (small models) and 55 (33k models) in geometric mean over seeds. The gain approximately equals the one-step accuracy cost of fine-tuning divided by the amplification ratio. Matching the solver's Jacobian along the model's own error direction (EDJM) outperformed random directions at the same cost on 28 of 35 seeds; input-noise injection performed comparably to EDJM.