Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

SymMatika: Structure-Aware Symbolic Discovery

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SymMatika claims that reusing high-impact subtrees from successful candidates — biological-sequence-motif style — lets a CPU-only genetic program beat neural and LLM-guided systems at exact equation recovery and recover implicit laws up…

desk verdict Strong explicit SR results and a genuinely new motif-reuse mechanism, but the implicit-derivative fitness formula in Sec. 3.1 is mathematically shaky and all implicit-relation claims depend on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03110 v2 pith:TBPDMVVS submitted 2025-07-03 cs.LG

Michael Scherk , Boyuan Chen This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords symbolicregressiongeneticprogrammingstructure-awaresearchmotiflibraryimplicitevolutionarycomputationNguyenbenchmarkFeynman
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 claims that the exponential search over symbolic expressions can be made far more tractable by evolving reusable substructures, not just whole expressions. Its system, SymMatika, runs multi-island genetic programming entirely on CPU, harvests high-impact subtrees from the best candidates each generation, and recombines those motifs into new candidates while adaptively retuning operator rates. On the Nguyen benchmark it reports 96.5% average exact recovery, including 61% on Nguyen-12, where the next-best reported method scores 2%; on the Feynman benchmark it recovers 73 of 100 target equations, one more than the best prior method. Using an implicit-derivative fitness for relations $F(\mathbf{x}) = 0$, the same engine recovers hidden constraints from raw pendulum and double-pendulum time series up to 100x faster than Eureqa. If these claims hold, exact equation discovery from data no longer requires GPUs, language models, or closed-source software.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the motif library: a $d \times k$ table, one row per input variable, holding up to $k$ high-impact symbolic subtrees. A symbolic motif is a subtree of a candidate expression that contributes strongly to fitness, the analogue of a recurring functional pattern in biological sequences. Each entry stores the subtree $\tau'$ and its impact score $I(\tau') = L(\tau) - L(\tau - \tau')$, computed as the loss of the full expression minus the loss of the expression with that subtree deleted. Every generation, the top-$M$ individuals from each island are decomposed into the left and right subtrees of their internal nodes; new motifs displace the lowest-ranked entries in their variable's row, and fresh candidates are synthesized by sampling motifs across rows, linking them with random binary operators, and placing them in a co-evolving motif population that feeds its best members back into the islands. This harvesting-and-recombination cycle is the mechanism that carries the paper's main claim: it lets partial solutions discovered independently across populations and generations be recombined instead of discarded. Two supporting mechanisms do specific work: feedback-based operator scheduling, which shifts crossover probability from 60% down to 5% and mutation from 30% up to 80% as a population plateaus, and the implicit-derivative fitness, which scores $F(\mathbf{x}) = 0$ candidates by comparing symbolic paired-partial derivatives with finite-difference estimates over all variable pairs, taking the worst-case pairing.

What would settle it

Run the open-sourced code on Nguyen-12 with the paper's stated settings (100 runs, 10,000 individuals per island, 1500 generations): the 61% recovery claim stands or falls on reproduction. Separately, evaluate the implicit fitness formula on the circle constraint $x^2 + y^2 = 1$, where the implicit function theorem fixes $\partial y / \partial x = -x/y$; if the generalized paired-partial formula does not recover that derivative from finite-difference data, the implicit-discovery claims do not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that structure-aware reuse, not more powerful single-expression search, is what cracks long and composite symbolic-regression problems. SymMatika maintains a motif library — a table, one row per input variable, of high-impact subtrees — and after each generation decomposes the top individuals on every island into the left and right subtrees of each internal node. Each subtree receives an impact score $I(\tau') = L(\tau) - L(\tau - \tau')$, the increase in loss when it is removed from the expression it came from, and the highest-scoring motifs replace the weakest entries in their variable's row. New expressions are then synthesized by sampling motifs from the rows, joining them with random binary operators, and placing the results into a dedicated motif population that co-evolves with the islands and injects its best members back into them. This is paired with feedback-driven operator scheduling — crossover falls from 60% to 5% and mutation rises from 30% to 80% as progress plateaus — and with temperature-guided Boltzmann selection that shifts the search from exploration to exploitation. For implicit relations, candidates $F(\mathbf{x}) = 0$ are scored by comparing symbolic paired-partial derivatives against finite-difference estimates across all variable pairs and taking the worst-case pairing; on Eureqa's four physical systems this recovers the hidden constraint equations 10x–100x faster than Eureqa. The authors attribute the gains specifically to the two learning mechanisms: in the Nguyen-12 ablation, motif reuse alone raises recovery from 5% to 40%, and both mechanisms together reach 65%.

Load-bearing premise

Everything the paper claims about discovering implicit laws from unlabeled data rests on one unproven formula that scores how well a candidate equation $F(\mathbf{x}) = 0$ fits the data; if that formula is wrong, or only works on the few low-dimensional systems where it was tested, the implicit-discovery results collapse, although the explicit equation-discovery results would still stand on their own.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long composite equations that stump essentially every published method become recoverable: 61% exact recovery on Nguyen-12 over 100 runs, against 0–2% for all compared baselines.
  • A CPU-only system with no GPU and no language model is competitive with, and on exact recovery better than, language-model-guided search: 73/100 on the Feynman benchmark versus 72/100 for the best prior method, and the methods that edge it out on fit do so at several times the expression complexity (4–6x for the TPSR variants on the Feynman Pareto plots).
  • Implicit law discovery becomes fast enough for interactive use: the four Eureqa physical systems are recovered in 0.15 s to 900 s, 10x–100x faster than Eureqa, from raw time series with no labeled output.
  • Because the framework is open-sourced and runs on a laptop-class CPU, the benchmark results can be reproduced and extended by other groups without proprietary software or GPU clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Cross-problem transfer: the paper builds and discards its motif library within a single run, but the library's design invites keeping it across datasets as a persistent prior, so a law discovered once becomes a building block for future problems; this is an untested extension the authors do not claim.
  • The implicit claims rest on a single fitness formula, and a direct stress test is to push it where the paper does not: discovering invariants in five or more variables (which the paper itself lists as future work) or constraints that couple more than two variables, where a worst-case pairing may not capture the actual dependency structure.
  • Composability with other generators: because the feedback scheduler and the motif library operate at the population level, they should combine with neural or transformer-based expression generators, which the paper notes are orthogonal; grafting motif recombination onto a deep symbolic-optimization loop is a testable next step.
  • Noise sensitivity is unmeasured: all benchmark data are noise-free, and whether the mean-log-error fitness and the impact scores survive observational noise is open, with the authors naming robustness to noise as future work.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. SymMatika is a symbolic regression (SR) framework that combines multi-island genetic programming with a reusable motif library and feedback-driven operator scheduling. The paper claims state-of-the-art exact recovery rates on the Nguyen benchmark (96.5% average, including 61% on Nguyen-12 versus 2% for the next best method), high recovery on the Feynman equations (73/100), strong Pareto performance on 57 SRBench Black-box problems, and recovery of implicit physical relations up to 100× faster than Eureqa. The framework is open-sourced and runs on CPU. The central claims are experimental: recovery rates on standard benchmarks and runtime comparisons on implicit systems.

Significance. If the results hold, SymMatika would be a strong, accessible, CPU-only SR system that unifies explicit and implicit discovery, with a genuinely interesting mechanism for reusing recurrent symbolic substructures. The paper's open-source release, ablation study, and explicit statement of hyperparameters are valuable strengths. The Nguyen-12 result, the Feynman recovery count, and the Pareto-front placement are potentially significant contributions to the SR benchmark literature. However, the implicit-discovery claims depend entirely on a derivative-based fitness metric (LDI) that is not derived, not clearly defined, and not validated; the implicit experiments in Section 4.4 also lack a precise recovery protocol. These issues block acceptance until resolved, even though the explicit benchmark results may be sound.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, implicit fitness (LDI)] The generalized paired-partial derivative formula is stated as ∂xi/∂xj = (∂xi + ∂xp·∆xp)/∆xi / ((∂xj + ∂xq·∆xq)/∆xj), but this is not a standard implicit-differentiation identity and no derivation is provided. The formula mixes symbolic partial-derivative symbols (∂xi) with finite-difference increments (∆xi), and the selection of the 'interdependent' variables xp and xq is unspecified. It also does not reduce to the standard implicit function theorem result ∂xi/∂xj = −(∂f/∂xj)/(∂f/∂xi) in the baseline case. Since all implicit-discovery results in Section 4.4 (circle, pendulum, sphere, double pendulum) rely on LDI, the authors must either provide a rigorous derivation, cite a reference, or remove the implicit claims until the metric is validated. This is load-bearing for the unified explicit+implicit claim.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Table 3] The runtime comparison against Eureqa is under-specified. The paper reports wall-clock convergence times but does not state the recovery success criteria, the ground-truth implicit expressions, the number of runs, or how mathematical equivalence of an implicit equation F(x)=0 was verified. Eureqa is described as supporting 32-core distributed infrastructure, while SymMatika runs on an M3 Max laptop, so the 10×–100× speedup claim is not interpretable without controlling for compute resources and search effort. The authors should report the recovered expressions, the equivalence-check method, per-run success rates, and hardware/parallelism settings for both systems.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and 4.2, exact recovery and baselines] The paper does not describe an equivalence-check protocol for exact recovery. For the Nguyen benchmark, a candidate like x^4−x^3+0.5y^2−y could be reported as recovered if it matches after symbolic simplification, but no such procedure is stated; the only example of equivalence checking is the single Doppler formula in Sec. 4.2. The baselines are also heterogeneous: NGGPPS, DSR, and Eureqa results are taken from previous papers, while PySR and Operon were run by the authors, but no compute budgets, population sizes, or generation counts are given for the latter. The Nguyen-12 claim of 61% recovery versus 2% requires a controlled, apples-to-apples comparison to be credible.
  4. [Sec. 3.3 and Appendix A.3, hyperparameter tuning] The paper states that the βθ bias factors were 'selected from observations and tuning of our parameterized candidate generator during initial testing' on the same benchmark families, and the operator schedules (mi, mf), migration rate αM, plateau threshold ε, and motif row capacity are also manually set. Because these hyperparameters were tuned on the Nguyen and Feynman suites, the state-of-the-art recovery rates may reflect tuning rather than algorithmic advantage. The authors should add sensitivity analyses (e.g., varying each hyperparameter on a holdout set) or at least report the range of values over which the Nguyen-12 recovery remains high.
  5. [Tab. 1 vs Tab. 4] There is an inconsistency in the Nguyen-12 results: Table 1 reports 61% recovery over 100 runs, while Table 4 reports 65% for the full model over 20 runs. The Nguyen average also differs slightly (96.5% vs 96.7%). This may be due to different random seeds, but the discrepancy undermines the precision of the headline claims. The authors should unify the reporting or explain the difference explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.3] The impact score I(τ') = L(τ) − L(τ − τ') is undefined because the notation τ − τ' does not specify how a subtree is removed from an expression while keeping the expression well-formed (e.g., what replaces the subtree or how parent operators are adjusted).
  2. [Sec. 3.2] In the operator probability function P(gn, h), the term |g0−gn|/g0 can divide by zero if g0 = 0, and the sign convention for mi, mf is never made precise beyond the example schedules.
  3. [Alg. 1] The plateau condition 'if plateau height h ≥ hmax' uses an undefined hmax; the value of ε = 1e−6 from Sec. 3.2 is not listed in Appendix A.3.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The row capacity k is used inconsistently: in Sec. 3.3 it is described as a small integer (≤20), but in Table 6 k = 200 is described as the number of GP iterations. Rename or clarify.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence about MRGP ('which reports a much-lower median R2 of 0.502 larger and complexity 9878.172') is garbled and should be rewritten.
  6. [Sec. 4.3] The statistical claim that Operon's outperformance is not significant (p = 0.71138) does not state which test was used, how many trials, or whether the comparison is on the same train/test folds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity; the implicit-derivative formula is an unproven correctness risk and tuned biases are a mild overfitting concern.

full rationale

SymMatika's explicit-relation claims are benchmark measurements against fixed external datasets (Nguyen, Feynman, SRBench), so they are not derived from its own assumptions by construction. The algorithm is self-contained: motif impact I(τ′)=L(τ)−L(τ−τ′) is a leave-one-out loss contribution, operator rates are updated from population fitness statistics, and the reported recoveries are evaluated against ground-truth expressions. The implicit-relation claims in Sec. 4.4 depend on the LDI fitness of Sec. 3.1, whose "generalized paired partial derivative" formula is asserted without derivation and, as written, does not reduce to the standard implicit-function-theorem identity ∂xi/∂xj = −(∂f/∂xj)/(∂f/∂xi); this is an omitted-proof/correctness risk for the circle, pendulum, sphere, and double-pendulum results, but it is not circular because LDI is not defined in terms of the target implicit expressions and the Eureqa datasets are external. The paper contains self-citations involving co-author Boyuan Chen (refs [7] and [16]), but only in related-work discussion; they are not load-bearing. Finally, the βθ biases are acknowledged to be "selected from observations and tuning of our parameterized candidate generator during initial testing" (Sec. 3.3), and the Nguyen-12 "next best 2%" comparator comes from the authors' own PySR/Operon runs (Sec. 4.1); both are transparency/overfitting concerns rather than demonstrated reductions of a prediction to a fitted input, because the paper does not state that initial tuning used the same benchmark tasks. Overall, no step in the paper's derivation chain is equivalent to its own inputs by definition, so the circularity score is low (2).

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the benchmark protocol, the validity of the implicit derivative metric, and several hand-tuned parameters. No new physical entity is proposed; the motif library is an algorithmic device.

free parameters (5)
  • beta_theta (operator bias factors) = 0.2 for five binary ops, 1.0 for thirteen unary/other ops
    Chosen during initial testing to compensate for operator frequency biases (Sec 3.3).
  • mi/mf operator schedules = crossover 60% to 5%, single-node 10% to 15%, mutation 30% to 80%
    Hand-set initial and final probabilities for genetic operators (Appendix Tab. 6).
  • migration rate alpha_M = 0.02, starting at 1% and growing to 2%
    Chosen to keep migrations small; authors observed convergence issues above 3% (Sec 3.2).
  • plateau threshold epsilon = 1e-6
    Defines negligible fitness improvement for plateau detection and operator scheduling (Sec 3.2).
  • motif row capacity k = <=20
    Maximum motifs per variable row in the library (Sec 3.3).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Implicit function theorem and finite-difference derivative estimates are valid for scoring implicit relations.
    Used to define LDI in Sec 3.1; assumes numerical data supports reliable derivative estimation.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized paired-partial derivative formula in Sec 3.1 correctly accounts for variable interdependencies in coupled systems.
    The formula is introduced without derivation and is not a standard identity; all implicit SR results depend on it.
  • domain assumption Removing a subtree from an expression and evaluating L(tau - tau') yields a meaningful impact score.
    The loss of the original tree without the subtree is not formally defined in Sec 3.3.
  • domain assumption Assigning each motif to the first variable encountered and recombining motifs with random operators produces useful new candidates.
    Motif generation and synthesis in Sec 3.3 rely on this heuristic for variable coverage and recombination.
  • domain assumption Exact recovery on Nguyen and Feynman is a well-defined and fair success criterion comparable across methods.
    The paper reports exact recovery rates but does not specify the symbolic equivalence-checking procedure or baseline compute budgets (Sec 4.1-4.2).
invented entities (1)
  • Symbolic motif library (Mf)
    purpose: Stores high-impact subtrees and recombines them into new candidate expressions to guide GP search.
    This is a new algorithmic construct. Its utility is supported only by ablation on the same benchmark families used for development, not by an external falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SymMatika: Structure-Aware Symbolic Discovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBPDMVVS

@misc{pith2026250703110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SymMatika: Structure-Aware Symbolic Discovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBPDMVVS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03110}
}
abstract

Symbolic regression (SR) seeks to recover closed-form mathematical expressions that describe observed data. While existing methods have advanced the discovery of either explicit mappings (i.e., $y = f(\mathbf{x})$) or discovering implicit relations (i.e., $F(\mathbf{x}, y)=0$), few modern and accessible frameworks support both. Moreover, most approaches treat each expression candidate in isolation, without reusing recurring structural patterns that could accelerate search. We introduce SymMatika, a hybrid SR algorithm that combines multi-island genetic programming (GP) with a reusable motif library inspired by biological sequence analysis. SymMatika identifies high-impact substructures in top-performing candidates and reintroduces them to guide future generations. Additionally, it incorporates a feedback-driven evolutionary engine and supports both explicit and implicit relation discovery using implicit-derivative metrics. Across benchmarks, SymMatika achieves state-of-the-art recovery rates on the Nguyen and Feynman benchmark suites, an impressive recovery rate of 61\% on Nguyen-12 compared to the next best 2\%, and strong placement on the error-complexity Pareto fronts on the Feynman equations and on a subset of 57 SRBench Black-box problems. Our results demonstrate the power of structure-aware evolutionary search for scientific discovery. To support broader research in interpretable modeling and symbolic discovery, we have open-sourced the full SymMatika framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SYMMATIKA is a high-performing symbolic regression framework. Given data DE (explicit) or DI (implicit), a parameterized generator θ produces m initial populations. Each population evolves for k GP iterations, and the top M expressions are used to update both the generator parameters θ and a reusable structure (i.e., Motif) library. High-impact subexpressions are recombined to form new candidates to accelerate conve… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Motif-based recombination across evolving populations with shared top performers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Error–complexity (rank) trade-off on the Black-box (left) and Feynman (right) datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SYMMATIKA GUI open screen Users should navigate through each header top-to-bottom beginning with Data and add the necessary information. In each header, there is also an instruction popup button to help explain the content for each section. Installation and setup instr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SYMMATIKA GUI screen after solving Nguyen-5 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Sym2Real: Symbolic Dynamics with Residual Learning for Data-Efficient Adaptive Control

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sym2Real learns a symbolic dynamics model in low-fidelity simulation, then adds a residual neural network trained on a few real-world trajectories to achieve sample-efficient adaptive control.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. M. Alaa and M. Van der Schaar. Demystifying black-box models with symbolic metamodels. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019. 10

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Arnaldo, K

    I. Arnaldo, K. Krawiec, and U.-M. O’Reilly. Multiple regression genetic programming. In Proceedings of the 2014 annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 879–886, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Biggio, T

    L. Biggio, T. Bendinelli, A. Neitz, A. Lucchi, and G. Parascandolo. Neural symbolic regression that scales. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 936–945. Pmlr, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 113(15):3932–3937, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Burlacu, G

    B. Burlacu, G. Kronberger, and M. Kommenda. Operon c++ an efficient genetic programming framework for symbolic regression. In Proceedings of the 2020 genetic and evolutionary computation conference companion, pages 1562–1570, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Champion, B

    K. Champion, B. Lusch, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton. Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(45):22445–22451, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    B. Chen, K. Huang, S. Raghupathi, I. Chandratreya, Q. Du, and H. Lipson. Automated discovery of fundamental variables hidden in experimental data. Nature Computational Science, 2(7): 433–442, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    M. F. Chou and D. Schwartz. Biological sequence motif discovery using motif-x. Current protocols in bioinformatics, 35(1):13–15, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    M. Cranmer. Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression. jl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01582, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Doerr, C

    B. Doerr, C. Doerr, and J. Lengler. Self-adjusting mutation rates with provably optimal success rules. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pages 1479– 1487, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Duarte, A

    G. Duarte, A. Lemonge, and L. Goliatt. A dynamic migration policy to the island model. In 2017 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pages 1135–1142. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands. The Feynman lectures on physics, Vol. II: The new millennium edition: mainly electromagnetism and matter, volume 2. Basic books, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    C. E. Grant and T. L. Bailey. Xstreme: Comprehensive motif analysis of biological sequence datasets. BioRxiv, pages 2021–09, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Grayeli, A

    A. Grayeli, A. Sehgal, O. Costilla Reyes, M. Cranmer, and S. Chaudhuri. Symbolic regression with a learned concept library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:44678– 44709, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    X. Guan, T. Yang, C. Zhao, and Y . Zhou. Feedback-based adaptive crossover-rate in evolutionary computation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 6923–6930, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Huang, D

    K. Huang, D. H. Cho, and B. Chen. Automated discovery of continuous dynamics from videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11894, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kamienny, S

    P.-A. Kamienny, S. d’Ascoli, G. Lample, and F. Charton. End-to-end symbolic regression with transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:10269–10281, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    J. R. Koza. Genetic programming: A paradigm for genetically breeding populations of computer programs to solve problems, volume 34. Stanford University, Department of Computer Science Stanford, CA, 1990

    1990

  11. [19]

    J. R. Koza. Genetic programming as a means for programming computers by natural selection. Statistics and computing, 4:87–112, 1994. 11

    1994

  12. [20]

    La Cava, B

    W. La Cava, B. Burlacu, M. Virgolin, M. Kommenda, P. Orzechowski, F. O. de França, Y . Jin, and J. H. Moore. Contemporary symbolic regression methods and their relative performance. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2021(DB1):1, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Landajuela, C

    M. Landajuela, C. S. Lee, J. Yang, R. Glatt, C. P. Santiago, I. Aravena, T. Mundhenk, G. Mulcahy, and B. K. Petersen. A unified framework for deep symbolic regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:33985–33998, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    J. S. Liu, M. Gupta, X. Liu, L. Mayerhofere, and C. E. Lawrence. Statistical models for biological sequence motif discovery. In Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics: Volume VI, pages 3–32. Springer, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    Q. Lu, J. Ren, and Z. Wang. Using genetic programming with prior formula knowledge to solve symbolic regression problem. Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2016(1):1021378, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Martius and C

    G. Martius and C. H. Lampert. Extrapolation and learning equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02995, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    T. N. Mundhenk, M. Landajuela, R. Glatt, C. P. Santiago, D. M. Faissol, and B. K. Petersen. Symbolic regression via neural-guided genetic programming population seeding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00053, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. K. Petersen, M. Landajuela, T. N. Mundhenk, C. P. Santiago, S. K. Kim, and J. T. Kim. Deep symbolic regression: Recovering mathematical expressions from data via risk-seeking policy gradients. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04871, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Schmidt and H

    M. Schmidt and H. Lipson. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. science, 324(5923):81–85, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    M. D. Schmidt and H. Lipson. Age-fitness pareto optimization. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 543–544, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Shojaee, K

    P. Shojaee, K. Meidani, A. Barati Farimani, and C. Reddy. Transformer-based planning for symbolic regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:45907–45919, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Stephens et al

    T. Stephens et al. Genetic programming in python, with a scikit-learn inspired api: gplearn. Documentation at https://gplearn. readthedocs. io/en/stable/intro. html, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    C. Sun, S. Shen, W. Tao, D. Xue, and Z. Zhou. Noise-resilient symbolic regression with dynamic gating reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01085, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tateno, K

    Y . Tateno, K. Ikeo, T. Imanishi, H. Watanabe, T. Endo, Y . Yamaguchi, Y . Suzuki, K. Takahashi, K. Tsunoyama, M. Kawai, et al. Evolutionary motif and its biological and structural significance. Journal of molecular evolution, 44:S38–S43, 1997

    1997

  25. [33]

    Udrescu and M

    S.-M. Udrescu and M. Tegmark. Ai feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regres- sion. Science advances, 6(16):eaay2631, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Virgolin and S

    M. Virgolin and S. P. Pissis. Symbolic regression is np-hard. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01018, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Whitley, S

    D. Whitley, S. Rana, and R. B. Heckendorn. The island model genetic algorithm: On separability, population size and convergence. Journal of computing and information technology, 7(1):33–47, 1999. 12 Appendix A.1 Sample Outputs From Subset of Feynman Equations Tab. 5: Compariso...

    1999

  28. [36]

    The ground truth equations and discovered equations are syntactially different although mathematically equivalent

    1 2 x2 III.17.37 f = β(1 + α cos(θ)) f = β + β cos (θ)α I.27.6 ff = d2 n+ d2 d1 ff = 1 1 d1 + n d2 I.47.23 c = q γpr ρ c = q γpr ρ I.12.11 F = q(Ef + Bv sin(θ)) F = qEf + qBv sin(θ) We demonstrate outputs on a subset of the Feynman Equations and compare ground truth equations ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.