Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A-SR: Self-Evolving Agentic LLMs for Symbolic Regression via Hierarchical Coordination

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LLM-guided equation search doubles its solved-task rate by routing evaluator feedback to role-specialized agents.

desk verdict A plausible new control abstraction for LLM-guided symbolic regression with a strong but under-specified headline result — deserves review if the authors ship code and numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04872 v2 pith:SCZRVMD4 submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Wenxiao Zhao , Dong Liu , Kaiyi Xu , Feng Liu , Zhen Zhao , Fei Ben , Shu Wang , Wenhao Li
show 4 more authors
Ying Nian Wu Fenghua Ling Haobo Li Lei Bai
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords symbolicregressionLLMagentsrole-conditionedpromptingprocessmemoryroutingcoordinationprotocolsself-evolvingsearchtrajectorydistillationscientificequationdiscovery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that LLM-guided symbolic regression fails not because the model lacks ideas, but because a single prompt and a scalar score cannot tell the next proposal what went wrong. A-SR replaces that unified loop with a coordinator that routes evaluator feedback to four role-specialized agents — Generator, Analyst, Simplifier, Reviewer — each seeing a different memory view, and selects among four coordination protocols based on an early profile of the search. The claim is that this shift of control from expression edits to role-conditioned evidence views is what drives the headline gains: Acc@0.01 on the four LSR-Synth scientific domains rises from 25.79% to 48.30% with Llama3.1-8B, and the LoRA-distilled variant raises Qwen3-4B from 24.58% to 38.29%. If true, it means two small open models can be made to solve scientific equation recovery at roughly double the rate of the strongest prior agentic baseline, with no parameter updates during search.

What carries the argument

The central object is the role-conditioned evidence view: a prompt context composed of the active role, routed process memory, recent evaluator feedback, and best candidate. Four roles share one LLM backbone — Generator (new structures), Analyst (missing terms), Simplifier (compression), Reviewer (validity and stability). A protocol selector chooses from four coordination archetypes after profiling the first 80 evaluations; an online role policy updates role utilities from an evaluator-derived reward; and a memory router exposes elite formulas, failure traces, or motif memory depending on the inferred process state. A-SR-LoRA adds an offline path: recorded trajectories are distilled into role-specific LoRA modules over an open-weight backbone, keeping the same coordination loop.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to run A-SR on LLM-SRBench's LSR-Synth domains with a different profiling budget (say B0=20 or B0=200) or with per-domain-tuned reward weights, and check whether the Acc@0.01 improvement over DE persists; if the margin collapses, the reported gain is tied to the hand-coded coordination rule rather than to the role-conditioned evidence-view principle. A second test: hold out entire scientific domains, re-derive the protocol-selector thresholds only on the held-in domains, and see if A-SR still beats DE on the held-out ones.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A-SR's central claim is a performance statement plus a control-structure statement. On LLM-SRBench's four LSR-Synth scientific domains, the system raises average Acc@0.01 over the strongest comparable baseline from 25.79% to 48.30% when built on Llama3.1-8B-Instruct, and the distilled A-SR-LoRA raises the Qwen3-4B-Instruct result from 24.58% to 38.29%; on four real-world tasks it takes the best ID/OOD NMSE on seven of eight reported metrics. The paper argues the improvement comes from making the role-conditioned evidence view the unit of control: evaluator feedback is turned into reliability and productivity profiles that select a coordination protocol, update role-level utilities, and route elite motifs, failure traces, and validity diagnostics to different agents, so the next proposal sees the evidence matching its current failure mode. Ablations against fixed role rotation and against removing memory routing or protocol selection are used to support the claim that coordination, not role prompting alone, is what carries the gains.

Load-bearing premise

The hand-coded protocol selector and the fixed reward weights in the role-utility update are assumed to transfer across scientific domains, and the first 80 evaluated candidates are assumed to be enough to profile the search; if those assumptions fail for a new domain, the reported gains over the baselines would not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scientific equation discovery with 8B-or-smaller open models becomes a practical target: the same coordination loop roughly doubles solved-task rate on LLM-SRBench's scientific domains without finetuning the backbone.
  • Small-model users can buy further accuracy by distilling recorded search trajectories into role-conditioned LoRA adapters, as A-SR-LoRA does with Qwen3-4B.
  • Because the coordinator is defined by explicit protocols, rewards, and routing rules, the search becomes auditable: one can see which role acted, which memory it saw, and which failure mode changed.
  • The separation of static, online, and distilled variants suggests deployment choices: broad expression recovery, reliability under shifting search states, and cheap open-source inference can be traded off.
  • Treating process traces, not just candidate populations, as search state opens a path toward learned controllers trained on meta-SR task banks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same role-conditioned evidence-view control could apply to other LLM program-search domains (e.g., code repair or theorem proving) where failures are heterogeneous, though the protocol archetypes would need re-deriving per domain.
  • The claimed gains likely depend on the early profiling budget B0=80 and on the fixed reward weights; a sensitivity sweep over these would reveal whether the method's margin over DE is robust or tuned.
  • The paper's evidence that role usage stays non-collapsed suggests the coordinator is solving a multi-armed bandit over roles; connecting it to bandit guarantees could give a principled regret bound for the test-time adaptation.
  • A-SR-LoRA's distillation corpus is teacher-generated on synthetic tasks; a direct test would be whether the adapters transfer to unseen experimental datasets beyond the four reported real-world tasks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents A-SR, an agentic LLM-guided symbolic regression framework that replaces a unified proposal-evaluation loop with role-conditioned evidence views: four roles (Generator, Analyst, Simplifier, Reviewer) coordinated by a hierarchical controller with protocol selection, online role-utility adaptation, and state-routed process memory. The framework self-evolves within a run without updating LLM parameters, and a LoRA-distilled variant (A-SR-LoRA) uses recorded trajectories as a role-conditioned proposal prior. The authors report large average Acc@0.01 improvements over Deliberate Evolution on LLM-SRBench (25.79% to 48.30% with Llama3.1-8B-Instruct; 24.58% to 38.29% with Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 for A-SR-LoRA) and best ID/OOD NMSE on 7 of 8 real-world LLM-SR tasks. The appendices provide implementation details, ablations, OOD tables, process diagnostics, and formula-level case studies.

Significance. The empirical headline claims are internally consistent: the 48.30% average matches the four LSR-Synth Acc@0.01 values for A-SR in Table 1, and the 7-of-8 claim matches Table 2. The framing—shifting control from expression edits to role–memory-view pairs—is a conceptually useful reframing for LLM-guided symbolic regression, and the two-timescale self-evolution (test-time adaptation plus offline LoRA distillation) is a plausible contribution. The paper also includes strengths that are not always present in this literature: explicit caveats about benchmark memorization (Appendix C), a synthetic distillation corpus explicitly not built from benchmark labels, process-level diagnostics (Figures 4, 7, 8), and formula-level case studies (Table 4, Tables 14–15). However, the core mechanism—online role-policy adaptation and protocol selection—is under-specified, and all headline results are point estimates from stochastic LLM sampling with no variance information. As a result, the central attribution claim is not yet verifiable from the manuscript alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (2)-(5); §3.2, Eq. (1)] The online role-policy mechanism at the center of the paper's contribution is not reproducible. The weights λ_v, λ_b, λ_i, λ_p in Eq. (2) are stated to be 'fixed across tasks' but their numerical values are never given; the smoothing rate η, the adaptation strength α_{π*}, the gate g_{π*,t}(r), and the protocol-induced base scores S^{π*}(r) in Eq. (4) are also unspecified. Eq. (1) defines π* = SelectProtocol(ρ_rel, ρ_prod) but the manuscript never states the decision rule, e.g., the thresholds on r_invalid, r_param, Δ_invalid, n_best, τ_stag that map a profile to one of the four protocols. Without these constants and rules, no independent implementation can reproduce the reported improvements (25.79%→48.30%, 24.58%→38.29%) or attribute them to online adaptation rather than to the hand-chosen defaults. The Limitations section (§6) concedes that the protocol selector 'may require recalibration for substantially different scientific domains,' which confirms it is hand-configured. Please provide the complete parameter settings and the exact profile-to-protocol mapping for all four protocols, or release code that unambiguously encodes them.
  2. [§4.5, Table 3] The ablation evidence for the central mechanism claim is statistically inconclusive. A-SR online achieves Val Acc 31.11% versus A-SR-Static 28.89%, a difference of one task on the 45-task subset, and fixed role rotation 24.44%. All numbers in Tables 1, 3, 10, 11, and 12 are point estimates from stochastic LLM sampling (temperature 0.8, per Tables 8/9), with no error bars, repeated seeds, or significance tests reported anywhere. With a one-task difference, the contrast between online and static adaptation cannot be distinguished from sampling noise, so the paper's statement that 'online role-policy adaptation improves solved-task reliability' is not supported by the reported evidence. Please report multi-seed or bootstrap intervals for at least the ablation table and the headline average Acc@0.01 values.
  3. [§4.1, §4.3, Tables 1-2] The manuscript does not distinguish between baselines the authors re-ran under matched budgets and seeds and values copied from prior publications. For the real-world tasks, Section 4.1 states 'published baseline values are taken from LLM-SR when available,' and DE is not re-run because it is not open-sourced; for LLM-SRBench, DE numbers are presumably taken from Pang et al. 2026, but this is not stated per cell. Since the headline claims are comparative (e.g., 'best ID/OOD NMSE on 7 of 8'), the lack of provenance and run-to-run variability makes the comparisons unverifiable. Please mark which numbers are reproduced and which are quoted, and add variability estimates for the reproduced A-SR runs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix Table 10] A-SR-LoRA's OOD NMSE on Physics (4.319e3) is more than two orders of magnitude worse than A-SR-Static (2.34e1) and worse than DE (1.97e3); the main-text sentence 'A-SR variants improve solved-task extrapolation reliability on Material, Chemistry, and Biology' should acknowledge this degradation rather than implying uniform improvement.
  2. [§4.4, Figures 4 and 8] The 'representative run' is a single trajectory; please state how the run was selected (e.g., median seed) so the reader can gauge how typical the shown dynamics are.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) is introduced before the four protocols are defined in the following paragraph; consider moving the protocol descriptions before Eq. (1) or defining SelectProtocol explicitly to avoid the appearance of a placeholder.
  4. [Appendix F] The teacher model for the distillation corpus is referred to as 'GPT-5.5'; if this denotes a specific model version, please provide a citation or clarify the version naming, since this affects the reproducibility of the distillation corpus.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark gains are empirical measurements and the distillation corpus is built from an external synthetic task bank, so the central claims are not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

A-SR's headline results are empirical measurements on the external LLM-SRBench and LLM-SR real-world tasks; the method's components (protocol selection in Eq. (1), role reward in Eq. (2), utility update in Eq. (3), role scoring in Eqs. (4)-(5)) are design choices that could fail, and the ablations in Table 3 compare variants independently of the final metrics. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the benchmark outcome, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the role-policy weights lambda_v, lambda_b, lambda_i, lambda_p are stated to be 'fixed across tasks' rather than fit to the benchmark, and their unstated numeric values are a reproducibility limitation, not a circular reduction. The A-SR-LoRA variant is trained on a synthetic meta-SR task bank with GPT-5.5 as teacher 'rather than on LLM-SRBench validation, test, or OOD labels' (Appendix F), so the distillation is not self-certifying on the evaluation tasks. The only self-referential element is the phrase 'recorded trajectories can be distilled into open-source LLMs as role-conditioned proposal priors,' which denotes self-distillation of the method's own trajectories; the paper explicitly constructs that corpus externally, and the resulting LoRA gains are independently measured. Citations to prior work (LLM-SR, LLM-SRBench, DE) come from non-overlapping author groups and are used as benchmarks or baselines, not as load-bearing justification of A-SR's own mechanism. Overall, the paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

A-SR rests on several hand-designed components: the reward weights in Eq. (2), the smoothing and adaptation constants in Eqs. (3)-(4), the profiling budget B0, and the protocol archetypes. These are not learned from data and their reported values are partially undisclosed. The benchmark evaluation assumes the public LLM-SRBench and LLM-SR baselines were run under comparable budgets, and that the LLM prior does not memorize the target equations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward weights lambda_v, lambda_b, lambda_i, lambda_p = not reported
    Hand-set weights in Eq. (2) balancing validity, best-improvement, invalidity, and parameter-failure signals; the paper states they are fixed across tasks but does not report their values or a sensitivity study.
  • Smoothing rate eta and adaptation strength alpha_pi* = not reported
    Exponential smoothing rate and protocol-conditioned adaptation strength in Eqs. (3)-(4); chosen by hand and not reported.
  • Profiling budget B0 = 80
    Number of initial candidates before protocol selection; hand-picked for low-budget LLM-SRBench experiments.
  • Maximum free parameters per skeleton = 10
    Cap on tunable constants per equation skeleton; applied uniformly but may affect comparison with baselines.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM proposal prior plus executable program representation is a productive search space for scientific equations
    Adopted from LLM-SR; A-SR builds on this without independent justification.
  • standard math Evaluator's BFGS constant fitting reliably optimizes continuous parameters
    Relies on Fletcher (2013) BFGS; no analysis of local optima or fitting failures beyond simple failure flags.
  • ad hoc to paper Hand-designed coordination protocols (EGC, RGC, PGC, SGC) map to recurring trajectory regimes
    The four protocols are constructed for this paper and selected by a hand-specified mapping from reliability/productivity profiles; transferability is assumed.
  • domain assumption LLM-SRBench transformed tasks reduce memorization
    Authors argue transformed equations reduce memorization, but acknowledge residual motifs remain; the validity of the benchmark as a memorization test is assumed.
invented entities (2)
  • Role-conditioned evidence views (Generator, Analyst, Simplifier, Reviewer)
    purpose: Control unit for which evidence each LLM call sees; paper claims this is the locus of control
    These are algorithmic artifacts, not observable entities; the paper provides no independent falsifiable handle outside its own benchmark results.
  • Coordination protocols pi_EGC, pi_RGC, pi_PGC, pi_SGC
    purpose: Select role/memory coordination bias based on search profile
    Ad hoc protocol archetypes; no independent evidence they correspond to true search regimes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A-SR: Self-Evolving Agentic LLMs for Symbolic Regression via Hierarchical Coordination." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCZRVMD4

@misc{pith2026260804872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A-SR: Self-Evolving Agentic LLMs for Symbolic Regression via Hierarchical Coordination},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCZRVMD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04872}
}
read the original abstract

Symbolic regression aims to discover closed-form equations from data, but existing LLM-guided methods often rely on a unified proposal loop that compresses heterogeneous search failures into a scalar score and a single prompt. We propose A-SR, a self-evolving agentic framework that shifts the control unit from expression edits to role-conditioned evidence views. A-SR coordinates formula discovery through routing among coordination protocols, an online evaluator-reward role policy, and state-routed process memory. During search, evaluator feedback characterizes reliability and productivity, updates role-level utilities, and routes elite motifs, failure traces, and validity diagnostics to different agents. The framework self-evolves at two timescales: within a run, it adapts the search process without updating LLM parameters; across runs, recorded trajectories can be distilled into open-source LLMs as role-conditioned proposal priors. Averaged over the four LSR-Synth scientific domains in LLM-SRBench, A-SR improves Acc@0.01 over baselines from 25.79% to 48.30% with Llama3.1-8B, while A-SR-LoRA improves the corresponding Qwen3-4B result from 24.58% to 38.29%. On four real-world scientific discovery tasks, A-SR obtains the best in-distribution or out-of-distribution normalized mean squared error on 7 of 8 reported metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04872 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Agentic feedback-driven coordination in A-SR. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall A-SR framework. A-SR converts executable evaluator feedback into process evidence, then uses a hierarchical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. OOD Acc@0.01 on the LSR-Synth scientific do [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Search dynamics on Chemistry task CRK12. A-SR improves best-so-far loss while maintaining high validity, non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Formula-level case study. A-SR recovers a sci [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the A-SR-LoRA distillation corpus. The figure summarizes only examples used for LoRA training, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Aggregate process diagnostics from A-SR runs. Panel A reports invalid-program and parameter-failure rates. Panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Additional search dynamics on the Biology task BPG9. The panels follow the same layout as Figure 4: best-so-far [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Se-DPO: Self-Evolving Token Credit for Direct Preference Optimization

    cs.CL 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Se-DPO assigns evolving per-token credits from implicit reward magnitude and reference entropy during DPO training, improving instruction-following win rates but with an internally inconsistent derivation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Science , volume =

    Michael Schmidt and Hod Lipson , title =. Science , volume =. 2009 , doi =

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

    Josh Bongard and Hod Lipson , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =. 2007 , doi =

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Science Advances , volume =

    Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark , title =. Science Advances , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

    Cranmer, Miles and Sanchez-Gonzalez, Alvaro and Battaglia, Peter and Xu, Rui and Cranmer, Kyle and Spergel, David and Ho, Shirley , title =. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2020 , isbn =

    2020

  5. [5]

    Symbolic Physics Learner: Discovering governing equations via Monte Carlo tree search , booktitle =

    Fangzheng Sun and Yang Liu and Jian. Symbolic Physics Learner: Discovering governing equations via Monte Carlo tree search , booktitle =. 2023 , url =

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Improving Symbolic Regression with Interval Arithmetic and Linear Scaling

    Keijzer, Maarten. Improving Symbolic Regression with Interval Arithmetic and Linear Scaling. Genetic Programming. 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    and Smits, Guido F

    Vladislavleva, Ekaterina J. and Smits, Guido F. and den Hertog, Dick , journal=. Order of Nonlinearity as a Complexity Measure for Models Generated by Symbolic Regression via Pareto Genetic Programming , year=

    work page

  8. [8]

    , title =

    Orzechowski, Patryk and La Cava, William and Moore, Jason H. , title =. 2018 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3205455.3205539 , booktitle =

    arXiv 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    DEAP: evolutionary algorithms made easy , year =

    Fortin, F\'. DEAP: evolutionary algorithms made easy , year =. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , month = jul, pages =

  2. [10]

    and Alderliesten, T

    Virgolin, M. and Alderliesten, T. and Witteveen, C. and Bosman, P. A. N. , title =. Evolutionary Computation , volume =. 2021 , month =. doi:10.1162/evco_a_00278 , url =

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    , journal =

    Cranmer, Miles D. , journal =. Interpretable Machine Learning for Science with. 2023 , eprint =

    2023

  4. [12]

    Petersen and Mikel Landajuela and T

    Brenden K. Petersen and Mikel Landajuela and T. Nathan Mundhenk and Cl. Deep symbolic regression: Recovering mathematical expressions from data via risk-seeking policy gradients , booktitle =. 2021 , url =

    2021

  5. [13]

    Nathan and Aravena, Ignacio and Mulcahy, Garrett and Petersen, Brenden , title =

    Landajuela, Mikel and Lee, Chak Shing and Yang, Jiachen and Glatt, Ruben and Santiago, Claudio and Mundhenk, T. Nathan and Aravena, Ignacio and Mulcahy, Garrett and Petersen, Brenden , title =. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing S...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Reddy , title =

    Parshin Shojaee and Kazem Meidani and Shashank Gupta and Amir Barati Farimani and Chandan K. Reddy , title =. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations,. 2025 , url =

    2025

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

    Grayeli, Arya and Sehgal, Atharva and Costilla-Reyes, Omar and Cranmer, Miles and Chaudhuri, Swarat , title =. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2024 , isbn =

    2024

  8. [16]

    LLM-SRBench:

    Parshin Shojaee and Ngoc. LLM-SRBench:. Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning,. 2025 , url =

    2025

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =

    Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2107.03374 , url =. 2107.03374 , archivePrefix =

    doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732 , year =

    Program Synthesis with Large Language Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732 , year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2108.07732 , url =. 2108.07732 , archivePrefix =

    doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Deliberate Evolution: Agentic Reasoning for Sample-Efficient Symbolic Regression with

    Pang, Xinyu and Zhou, Zhanke and Li, Xuan and Lv, Fangrui and Wei, Shanshan and Cui, Sen and Han, Bo and Zhang, Changshui , journal =. Deliberate Evolution: Agentic Reasoning for Sample-Efficient Symbolic Regression with

  12. [20]

    Aakash and JohnPatrick Connors and Michael D

    B.S. Aakash and JohnPatrick Connors and Michael D. Shields , keywords =. Stress-strain data for aluminum 6061-T651 from 9 lots at 6 temperatures under uniaxial and plane strain tension , journal =. 2019 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104085 , url =

    2019

  13. [21]

    Dubey, Abhimanyu and Jauhri, Abhinav and Pandey, Abhinav and Kadian, Abhishek and Al-Dahle, Ahmad and Letman, Aiesha and Mathur, Akhil and Schelten, Alan and Yang, Amy and Fan, Angela and others , journal =. The

  14. [22]

    Yang, An and Li, Anfeng and Yang, Baosong and Zhang, Beichen and Hui, Binyuan and Zheng, Bo and Yu, Bowen and Gao, Chang and Huang, Chengen and Lv, Chenxu and others , journal =

  15. [23]

    Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning , series =

    Neural Symbolic Regression that Scales , author =. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning , series =. 2021 , publisher =

    2021

  16. [24]

    End-to-end symbolic regression with transformers , year =

    Kamienny, Pierre-Alexandre and d'Ascoli, St\'. End-to-end symbolic regression with transformers , year =. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14351 , year=

    Contemporary symbolic regression methods and their relative performance , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14351 , year=

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Yoshitomo Matsubara and Naoya Chiba and Ryo Igarashi and Yoshitaka Ushiku , title =. J. Data-centric Mach. Learn. Res. , volume =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  19. [27]

    and Le, Quoc V

    Wei, Jason and Wang, Xuezhi and Schuurmans, Dale and Bosma, Maarten and Ichter, Brian and Xia, Fei and Chi, Ed H. and Le, Quoc V. and Zhou, Denny , title =. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2022 , isbn =

    2022

  20. [28]

    Le and Ed H

    Xuezhi Wang and Jason Wei and Dale Schuurmans and Quoc V. Le and Ed H. Chi and Sharan Narang and Aakanksha Chowdhery and Denny Zhou , title =. The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations,. 2023 , url =

    2023

  21. [29]

    and Cao, Yuan and Narasimhan, Karthik , title =

    Yao, Shunyu and Yu, Dian and Zhao, Jeffrey and Shafran, Izhak and Griffiths, Thomas L. and Cao, Yuan and Narasimhan, Karthik , title =. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2023 , publisher =

    2023

  22. [30]

    Narasimhan and Yuan Cao , title =

    Shunyu Yao and Jeffrey Zhao and Dian Yu and Nan Du and Izhak Shafran and Karthik R. Narasimhan and Yuan Cao , title =. The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations,. 2023 , url =

    2023

  23. [31]

    Toolformer: language models can teach themselves to use tools , year =

    Schick, Timo and Dwivedi-Yu, Jane and Dess\'. Toolformer: language models can teach themselves to use tools , year =. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

  24. [32]

    Wu, Qingyun and Bansal, Gagan and Zhang, Jieyu and Wu, Yiran and Li, Beibin and Zhu, Erkang and Jiang, Li and Zhang, Xiaoyun and Zhang, Shaokun and Liu, Jiale and others , journal =

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

    Li, Guohao and Al Kader Hammoud, Hasan Abed and Itani, Hani and Khizbullin, Dmitrii and Ghanem, Bernard , title =. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2023 , publisher =

    2023

  26. [34]

    , title =

    Park, Joon Sung and O'Brien, Joseph and Cai, Carrie Jun and Morris, Meredith Ringel and Liang, Percy and Bernstein, Michael S. , title =. 2023 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 , booktitle =

    2023

  27. [35]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations,

    Yujia Qin and Shihao Liang and Yining Ye and Kunlun Zhu and Lan Yan and Yaxi Lu and Yankai Lin and Xin Cong and Xiangru Tang and Bill Qian and Sihan Zhao and Lauren Hong and Runchu Tian and Ruobing Xie and Jie Zhou and Mark Gerstein and Dahai Li and Zhiyuan Liu and Maosong Sun...

    2024

  28. [36]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations,

    Xiao Liu and Hao Yu and Hanchen Zhang and Yifan Xu and Xuanyu Lei and Hanyu Lai and Yu Gu and Hangliang Ding and Kaiwen Men and Kejuan Yang and Shudan Zhang and Xiang Deng and Aohan Zeng and Zhengxiao Du and Chenhui Zhang and Sheng Shen and Tianjun Zhang and Yu Su and Huan Sun...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

    Madaan, Aman and Tandon, Niket and Gupta, Prakhar and Hallinan, Skyler and Gao, Luyu and Wiegreffe, Sarah and Alon, Uri and Dziri, Nouha and Prabhumoye, Shrimai and Yang, Yiming and Gupta, Shashank and Majumder, Bodhisattwa Prasad and Hermann, Katherine and Welleck, Sean and Y...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

    Shinn, Noah and Cassano, Federico and Gopinath, Ashwin and Narasimhan, Karthik and Yao, Shunyu , title =. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2023 , publisher =

    2023

  31. [39]

    Nature , volume =

    Mathematical Discoveries from Program Search with Large Language Models , author =. Nature , volume =

  32. [40]

    and Kaiser,

    Vaswani, Ashish and Shazeer, Noam and Parmar, Niki and Uszkoreit, Jakob and Jones, Llion and Gomez, Aidan N. and Kaiser,. Attention is all you need , year =. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pages =

  33. [41]

    Practical Methods of Optimization , author =

  34. [42]

    2023 , isbn =

    Kwon, Woosuk and Li, Zhuohan and Zhuang, Siyuan and Sheng, Ying and Zheng, Lianmin and Yu, Cody Hao and Gonzalez, Joseph and Zhang, Hao and Stoica, Ion , title =. 2023 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3600006.3613165 , booktitle =

    2023

  35. [43]

    Ouyang, Long and Wu, Jeff and Jiang, Xu and Almeida, Diogo and Wainwright, Carroll L. and Mishkin, Pamela and Zhang, Chong and Agarwal, Sandhini and Slama, Katarina and Ray, Alex and Schulman, John and Hilton, Jacob and Kelton, Fraser and Miller, Luke and Simens, Maddie and As...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Hu and Yelong Shen and Phillip Wallis and Zeyuan Allen

    Edward J. Hu and Yelong Shen and Phillip Wallis and Zeyuan Allen. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models , booktitle =. 2022 , url =

    2022

  37. [45]

    Brown, Tom B. and Mann, Benjamin and Ryder, Nick and Subbiah, Melanie and Kaplan, Jared and Dhariwal, Prafulla and Neelakantan, Arvind and Shyam, Pranav and Sastry, Girish and Askell, Amanda and Agarwal, Sandhini and Herbert-Voss, Ariel and Krueger, Gretchen and Henighan, Tom ...

    2020

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , year=

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , year=

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem , year =

    Auer, Peter and Cesa-Bianchi, Nicol\`. Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem , year =. doi:10.1023/A:1013689704352 , month = may, pages =

    doi

  40. [48]

    Brunton and Joshua L

    Steven L. Brunton and Joshua L. Proctor and J. Nathan Kutz , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  41. [49]

    Rudy and Steven L

    Samuel H. Rudy and Steven L. Brunton and Joshua L. Proctor and J. Nathan Kutz , title =. Science Advances , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  42. [50]

    Massucci and Manuel Miranda and Jordi Pallarès and Marta Sales-Pardo , title =

    Roger Guimerà and Ignasi Reichardt and Antoni Aguilar-Mogas and Francesco A. Massucci and Manuel Miranda and Jordi Pallarès and Marta Sales-Pardo , title =. Science Advances , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.