Could surrogates ever detect systematic errors in Geant4 that they're trained on?

# Can Surrogates Detect Systematic Errors in Geant4?

This is a genuinely interesting question, and the honest answer is: the archive doesn't directly address it.

Here's why the distinction matters. Surrogates are trained *on* Geant4 outputs [AG-2025.11-1571, AG-2024.10-1518, AG-2026.04-1132]. They learn to reproduce whatever patterns exist in that training data. If Geant4 itself contains a systematic bias—say, it slightly underestimates shower broadness in a particular material—a surrogate trained on Geant4 will faithfully replicate that bias. The surrogate becomes a mirror of its teacher's errors.

What the archive *does* show is the reverse problem: detecting when a *surrogate* has failed to capture Geant4's behavior correctly. The SURF method [AG-2025.11-1399] validates generative models by testing whether they match the underlying data distribution they were trained on. Vision Transformers are evaluated by comparing their outputs against Geant4 [AG-2025.09-1622]. These are fidelity checks—asking "does the surrogate accurately learn what Geant4 does?"—not truth checks.

To detect systematic errors *in* Geant4 itself, you'd need independent ground truth: real experimental data from actual detectors, or alternative physics models. That's a different validation problem altogether—one where both Geant4 and the surrogate would be tested against nature, not against each other.

The provided preprints don't address whether surrogates could reveal flaws in Geant4 by comparison to experiment or alternative theory.