ArticleScientific reports2026
Physics-informed structural diagnostics of model-data agreement beyond scalar metrics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Physics-informed machine-learning models increasingly incorporate physical laws and constraints to improve data efficiency and predictive robustness; yet their validation remains dominated by pooled scalar accuracy metrics that are largely insensitive to violations of the underlying governing relationships. Here we introduce a physics-informed validation framework, the Agreement-Entropy Map (AEM), which diagnoses model-data agreement by distinguishing structural incompatibility from conditional stochastic dispersion, rather than by defining a scalar metric or additive error decomposition. Conditioned on a physically motivated linearization of the governing relation and evaluated on matched comparison domains, AEM combines regression geometry with an information-theoretic dispersion measure based on a Gaussian plug-in entropy of residuals, without requiring distributional modeling or inferential assumptions. The framework applies uniformly to experiment-experiment and model-experiment comparisons and is agnostic to model class, architecture, and training procedure. Using thermodynamic systems as a canonical physics-governed testbed, we show that AEM reveals structural bias, variance-driven artefacts, and ensemble effects that remain undetected by conventional scalar validation metrics. By identifying when stochastic interpretation is admissible under a shared physical structure, AEM provides a general and interpretable validation principle for physics-informed machine learning, particularly in regimes involving limited, heterogeneous, or damaged data.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.