Why do foundation models for physics generalize across kinematic regimes but lack tested performance on branching decay chains?

This is a thoughtful question, but the provided preprints don't directly address the core issue you're asking about—namely, *why* foundation models generalize across kinematic regimes but fail on branching decay chains.

Here's what the archive does show:

Foundation models in physics *do* generalize across kinematic regimes remarkably well. Models trained on collider data transfer to neutrino scattering [AG-2026.04-1164], tau lepton reconstruction [AG-2025.03-1653], and even cosmological predictions [AG-2025.12-1947]. Equation discovery works "across in-domain and out-of-domain kinematic regions" [AG-2025.10-1233]. A unified transformer trained on top-quark production simultaneously handles "$t\bar{t}$, $tX$, $t\bar{t}H$" and rare high-multiplicity topologies without separate frameworks [AG-2025.11-1264].

However, the preprints don't discuss branching decay chains specifically, nor do they explain the *mechanism* behind kinematic generalization versus its failure modes. One suggestive note: LLMs show "systematic degradation when tasks require reconstruction of omitted reasoning steps or reorganization of representations under global consistency constraints" [AG-2026.04-565]—which hints that models struggle when they must track hidden combinatorial structure. Branching decays, with their exponential multiplicity of possible decay paths and ambiguous particle associations, might be exactly this kind of problem.

To answer your question properly, you'd need papers that explicitly benchmark foundation models on decay-chain reconstruction and analyze where they break down.