Architecture-Induced Recoverability Bias in Differentiable Symbolic Regression
Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:44 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
In symbolic regression the tree architecture determines which targets gradient descent recovers, not the structure's expressiveness.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
Expressiveness guarantees that a solution exists in the search space but does not guarantee that gradient descent finds it. The most expressive tree fails on targets that restricted alternatives recover reliably, and the ranking of structures reverses across targets. Balanced tree shapes are never recovered, switching the operator changes which targets succeed, and reversing an operator's gradient profile collapses recovery entirely.
What carries the argument
The fixed tree architecture that places operators and variables at specific positions, which in turn shapes the loss landscape that gradient descent navigates when optimizing the weights.
If this is right
- On some targets one structure recovers the formula at 100 percent while another scores 0 percent.
- The ordering of which structure performs best reverses when the target function changes.
- Changing which operators are available alters the set of targets that are successfully recovered.
- Reversing the gradient profile of an operator eliminates recovery for targets that previously succeeded.
- Balanced non-chain tree shapes are never recovered regardless of the target.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- Practitioners using gradient-based symbolic regression may need to test multiple fixed architectures rather than assuming a single choice will work across targets.
- The results suggest that future methods could benefit from mechanisms that adapt the tree shape during search instead of committing to one structure upfront.
- Similar architecture sensitivity may appear in other gradient-trained symbolic or neuro-symbolic models where expressiveness is traded against trainability.
Load-bearing premise
The differences in recovery rates across the three tree structures are caused by the architecture itself rather than by unstated choices of initialization, hyperparameters, or the particular set of target functions and operators.
What would settle it
Re-running the full set of experiments with different random initializations or altered hyperparameter schedules and checking whether the 0 percent recovery cases remain at 0 percent or begin to succeed.
Figures
read the original abstract
Symbolic regression aims to recover closed-form expressions from numerical data, but in differentiable symbolic regression the recovered expression depends not only on the grammar but also on the fixed architecture through which variables are routed during training. This is relevant to signal-processing settings in which closed-form models and interpretable nonlinear structure are useful. This architecture-specific effect has rarely been isolated directly, because existing comparisons often vary architecture together with operator family, grammar, or search procedure. Three depth-3 architectures are compared across twenty-four operator--shape--leaf combinations, holding operator family, grammar, and training protocol fixed as far as possible while varying the variable-routing architecture. Recovery changes from $0/64$ to $64/64$ trials on the same target under an architecture-plus-native-training-protocol comparison. The best architecture on one target is the worst on another, and trees with two equal-depth subtrees fail in every configuration tested ($0/3{,}776$). As a proof-of-concept mitigation, a small architecture set is trained and the hardened expression with the lowest held-out RMSE is selected. On the jointly-run subset, this improves recovery from $34.4\%$ for the only architecture present in all three configurations to $50.1\%$. On a Shockley diode target, the validation selector recovers cases missed by that baseline architecture, which by itself recovers $0/32$ seeds. Since the jointly-run subset contains only three configurations, the selector result is evidence that validation-based architecture selection is promising, not a complete benchmark. These results support treating architecture as a measurable design variable that should be reported, stress-tested, and selected using held-out validation rather than fixed a priori.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript presents an empirical study on gradient-based symbolic regression comparing three fixed tree architectures that share identical operator sets and target languages but differ in variable-entry topology (one strictly more expressive than the others). Across more than 12,700 training runs, it reports large differences in recovery rates, including complete reversals (100% vs. 0% on specific targets) and the total failure of balanced (non-chain) trees. The central claim is that the optimization landscape induced by architecture—not expressiveness alone—determines which targets gradient descent can recover, with additional observations that operator choice and gradient profile also affect outcomes.
Significance. If the experimental controls isolate architecture as the sole variable, the result is significant for gradient-based symbolic regression methods: it demonstrates that more expressive structures can systematically underperform on targets solved reliably by restricted alternatives, and that balanced trees are unrecoverable. The scale of the experiment (12,700 runs) provides empirical weight to the reversals and the landscape-dependence claim. This could guide architecture selection in practice and motivate further analysis of why certain topologies create harder optimization problems.
major comments (3)
- [Experimental Setup / Methods] Experimental Setup / Methods: The manuscript does not explicitly state that a single shared hyperparameter vector (learning-rate schedule, initialization distribution, batch size, and gradient implementation) was used across all three architectures. Since the central claim attributes recovery-rate gaps (including 100% vs. 0% reversals) solely to tree topology, confirmation that no per-architecture tuning or differing effective step-sizes occurred is required to rule out confounds from initialization or optimization details.
- [Results] Results section (recovery-rate tables/figures): While the abstract and results report dramatic differences and reversals across targets, the text does not indicate whether variance was measured across independent random seeds for each architecture-target pair or whether statistical tests were applied to the 100%/0% claims. Without this, the reliability of the ranking reversals cannot be fully assessed.
- [Discussion / Operator Gradients] Discussion of operator gradients: The observation that reversing an operator's gradient profile collapses recovery is load-bearing for the landscape claim, yet the manuscript provides no explicit equations or pseudocode for how the gradient is computed through the tree for each architecture. This detail is necessary to verify that the gradient implementation itself does not differ across structures.
minor comments (2)
- [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it named the exact number of targets, operators, and the precise definitions of the three tree structures (e.g., via a small diagram or equations) rather than describing them only qualitatively.
- [Introduction / Methods] Notation for the three architectures is introduced late; a dedicated figure or table early in the paper comparing their variable-entry topologies would improve readability.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below. Revisions have been made to the manuscript to provide the requested clarifications and details.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Experimental Setup / Methods] Experimental Setup / Methods: The manuscript does not explicitly state that a single shared hyperparameter vector (learning-rate schedule, initialization distribution, batch size, and gradient implementation) was used across all three architectures. Since the central claim attributes recovery-rate gaps (including 100% vs. 0% reversals) solely to tree topology, confirmation that no per-architecture tuning or differing effective step-sizes occurred is required to rule out confounds from initialization or optimization details.
Authors: We confirm that a single shared hyperparameter vector was used across all three architectures, with identical learning-rate schedules, initialization distributions, batch sizes, and gradient implementations. No per-architecture tuning or adjustments to effective step sizes were performed. We have added an explicit statement in the Methods section to document this shared configuration. revision: yes
-
Referee: [Results] Results section (recovery-rate tables/figures): While the abstract and results report dramatic differences and reversals across targets, the text does not indicate whether variance was measured across independent random seeds for each architecture-target pair or whether statistical tests were applied to the 100%/0% claims. Without this, the reliability of the ranking reversals cannot be fully assessed.
Authors: The total of over 12,700 training runs incorporates multiple independent random seeds for each architecture-target pair. We have revised the Results section to explicitly note that variance was measured across these repeated seeds and that the reported recovery rates reflect success fractions over the repetitions. Formal statistical tests were not applied, but the absolute reversals (100% vs. 0%) are consistent outcomes that do not require such tests to establish the ranking differences. revision: yes
-
Referee: [Discussion / Operator Gradients] Discussion of operator gradients: The observation that reversing an operator's gradient profile collapses recovery is load-bearing for the landscape claim, yet the manuscript provides no explicit equations or pseudocode for how the gradient is computed through the tree for each architecture. This detail is necessary to verify that the gradient implementation itself does not differ across structures.
Authors: We agree that explicit details on gradient computation are needed to support the claims. We have added equations and pseudocode in the Methods section describing the gradient computation through the tree for each architecture. These additions confirm that the implementation is consistent across structures, with observed differences attributable to topology. revision: yes
Circularity Check
Purely empirical comparison with no derivations or self-referential predictions
full rationale
The paper conducts an experimental study comparing three tree architectures for gradient-based symbolic regression across 12,700+ runs. It reports observed recovery rates (e.g., 100% vs 0% on specific targets) and notes that expressiveness does not guarantee optimization success. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present in the abstract or described methodology. All claims rest on direct experimental outcomes rather than any reduction to inputs by construction. This is the standard case of a non-circular empirical paper.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (2)
- domain assumption Gradient descent optimization behaves consistently across the compared tree structures when the same operators and targets are used.
- domain assumption The selected targets and operators are representative of typical symbolic regression problems.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.