Why would a deep learning surrogate trained on fixed detector geometry perform worse under size changes than spacing redistributions?

This is a sharp question about the robustness properties of neural surrogates in detector physics—it gets at a real asymmetry in how these models fail.

The key insight is that detector geometry and network architecture are tightly coupled [AG-2025.11-1571]. When you change the physical *size* of a detector—say, making the calorimeter barrel 20% larger—you fundamentally alter the input-output mapping the network learned. A particle's energy now deposits over a different spatial extent; the point cloud or voxel grid the network expects has a different scale and structure. The network must relearn where and how energy clusters form. This is a structural mismatch.

By contrast, spacing redistributions preserve the overall geometry class [AG-2025.11-1571]. If you keep the detector the same size but redistribute detector elements (say, spacing readout channels differently), you're asking the network to learn a new *local sampling pattern* rather than a fundamentally new geometry. The point cloud approach used in modern surrogates—which represents particle showers as sets of points rather than rigid voxel grids—is particularly robust to such redistributions because point clouds are invariant to how densely you sample a given space [AG-2025.11-1571]. The underlying physics (where energy goes) hasn't changed; only how finely you measure it has.

This is why transfer learning from one detector to another works reasonably well with modest fine-tuning when geometries are *similar* [AG-2025.02-1472], but breaks down badly under size changes: the former requires learning new reconstruction patterns within the same topological class, while the latter requires the network to generalize its learned feature hierarchy to a qualitatively different input domain.

The provided preprints don't directly compare these two failure modes quantitatively.