How does surrogate accuracy requirements differ between exploratory design optimization and high-stakes parameter inference?

Looking at your question about how surrogate accuracy requirements vary between exploratory design optimization and high-stakes parameter inference, these preprints illuminate the key distinction quite nicely.

The Core Difference

In exploratory design optimization, you're searching a large design space to discover promising candidates — accuracy is important for *steering the search*, but perfect fidelity isn't essential. The surrogate acts like a compass: it needs to point roughly in the right direction to save computational cost. By contrast, in high-stakes parameter inference, you're extracting fundamental quantities (like particle masses or black hole properties) from data, and the posterior distribution you recover must be trustworthy for publication or policy decisions. Here, surrogate error directly corrupts your final answer.

Quantifying the Tolerance

The most direct guidance comes from cosmology: a neural network emulator with roughly 20% error can still reliably recover accurate posterior distributions if you bound the information-theoretic distortion [AG-2025.03-206]. This is quantified via Kullback-Leibler divergence, which measures how much incorrect information leaks into your posterior. The key insight is that even noisy surrogates work in Bayesian inference *provided you characterize their error* — you're not trying to make the surrogate perfect, just to know its limits.

For design optimization, the bar is lower. When tuning a quantum network's parameters across memory allocation and entanglement switch settings, researchers used machine learning surrogates to navigate a computationally intractable search space [AG-2024.07-2351]. There, the surrogate's job was to identify regions worth exploring on the slow simulator — it didn't need to be globally accurate, just locally informative.

Accuracy Demands in Practice

When the stakes rise — as in inferring the properties of black hole merger remnants for gravitational-wave astronomy — you need systematic optimization of the surrogate itself. Building a neural surrogate of numerical relativity simulations requires formal strategies for choosing training data size and network architecture, with the goal of matching existing high-fidelity surrogates to within their own uncertainty [AG-2025.01-653]. This is much more demanding than, say, using a neural surrogate to explore gravitational wave detector designs, where you loop between the surrogate, inverse design, and occasional slow-simulator verification [AG-2025.11-530] — you're allowed to be wrong in the surrogate as long as you catch mistakes before deployment.

Validation Complexity

For inference, you also need rigorous validation. The SURF method for validating generative models shows why: surrogates can silently give a misleading picture of what the data actually supports [AG-2025.11-1399]. A discriminative versus generative comparison in particle physics found that likelihood-ratio methods outperformed direct likelihood estimation for neural simulation-based inference, highlighting that the *architecture* of your surrogate matters as much as its raw accuracy when inferring parameters [AG-2025.03-1432].

The preprints don't directly address when to stop optimizing a surrogate in design workflows, but the pattern is clear: exploratory optimization tolerates ~10–20% error with loose validation, while inference demands systematic accuracy characterization and often architecture-specific validation before you trust the posterior.