{"ID":5675346,"CreatedAt":"2026-07-03T01:40:09.565152011Z","UpdatedAt":"2026-07-07T01:06:03.009715918Z","DeletedAt":null,"paper_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02101","arxiv_id":"2607.02101","title":"Sequential Structure-Sensitive Residual Diagnostics for PDE Inverse Problems","abstract":"Computational models in science and engineering are often assessed by checking whether the residual norm is consistent with the assumed noise level. This can be misleading in smoothing inverse problems: structured model errors may be attenuated in observation space, leaving residual magnitudes below practitioner discrepancy thresholds while coherent residual patterns remain. As a result, residual-norm diagnostics can accept fitted models that still give biased parameters, predictions, or quantities of interest. We propose a structure-sensitive sequential diagnostic based on e-processes. The method uses a portfolio of spatial residual-pattern experts, updates their likelihood-ratio wealth as observations are processed, and rejects the fitted model when the aggregate wealth crosses a prescribed threshold, giving anytime-valid type-I error control for a fixed fitted model. We compare the method with Morozov discrepancy checks, fixed-sample residual tests, and batch projection tests. Across three inverse problems (elliptic diffusion, two-dimensional Stokes flow, and a glaciological ice-stream inversion implemented in the community finite-element model icepack) we demonstrate how standard discrepancy checks accept misspecified fits that produce materially wrong quantities of interest. Structure-sensitive batch tests detect these failures using the full dataset, while the e-process detects them earlier from a fraction of the observations. After rejection, the expert wealth attributes the evidence to residual patterns in the chosen dictionary and provides a basis for exploratory model correction.","short_abstract":"Computational models in science and engineering are often assessed by checking whether the residual norm is consistent with the assumed noise level. This can be misleading in smoothing inverse problems: structured model errors may be attenuated in observation space, leaving residual magnitudes below practitioner discre...","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02101","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.02101v1","authors":"[\"Ieva Kazlauskaite\"]","published":"2026-07-02T12:36:48Z","proceeding":"stat.ME","tasks":"[\"stat.ME\",\"stat.ML\"]","methods":"[\"Diffusion Model\",\"LoRA\"]","has_code":false}