Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A First Observational Assessment of Cosmic Backreaction Over an Extended Redshift Range

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Current data yield the first direct bounds on cosmic backreaction over a wide redshift range, but they remain too loose to decide whether it is zero or percent-level.

desk verdict Honest first data application of a new backreaction probe; constraints are real but still too loose to decide anything, and the paper says so. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.11249 v2 pith:UGSX3ABX submitted 2026-04-13 astro-ph.CO

S. M. Koksbang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicbackreactionBuchertaveragingobservationalconstraintsBAOPantheon+symbolicregressionredshift-distancerelation
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 takes a recently proposed combination of observed redshift, angular-diameter distance and expansion rate and applies it for the first time to real survey data. The combination isolates the sum of the averaged spatial curvature and the kinematic backreaction that appear in the Buchert equations. Using supernova distances and radial BAO expansion-rate measurements reconstructed without assuming an FLRW model, the authors obtain the first observational limits on that sum from roughly redshift 0.5 to 2.25. The limits comfortably include the flat FLRW value of zero, yet the error bands are still wide enough that a percent-level backreaction contribution cannot be excluded. The exercise therefore serves both as a proof of principle and as a forecast: the same method applied to the denser data expected from forthcoming surveys should deliver genuinely informative constraints on whether large-scale structure feeds back into the average expansion history.

What carries the argument

The observable combination Ω_R + 3Ω_Q = (1 + ⟨z⟩)^{2}/D [H'_D D'/H_D + D''], obtained by rearranging the averaged light-propagation equation that relates spatial averages to the observed redshift-distance relation under the assumption that light samples the volume fairly.

What would settle it

A future reconstruction of the same combination from denser BAO and supernova samples whose 1σ band either excludes zero by several sigma or shrinks tightly around zero while remaining consistent with independent local measurements of Ω_Q and Ω_R.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Applying the identity that equates Ω_R + 3Ω_Q to a combination of the reconstructed distance D and expansion rate H_D and their redshift derivatives yields the first direct observational constraints on total cosmic backreaction over an extended redshift range; those constraints are consistent with vanishing backreaction at the 1σ level but remain too broad to rule out order-0.01 effects.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that light beams fairly sample the cosmic volume, so that the measured combination really equals the backreaction density parameters rather than a Dyer-Roeder opacity parameter.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This addendum applies the light-propagation relation of Heinesen & Clifton (arXiv:2604.07244) to existing Pantheon+ supernova and BAO data, reconstructing D(z) and H_D(z) via the bootstrap symbolic-regression pipeline of Koksbang & Heinesen (arXiv:2604.05822). The resulting combination yields observational bounds on Ω_R + 3Ω_Q over 0.5 ≲ ⟨z⟩ ≲ 2.25. The flat-FLRW value zero lies inside the 1σ bands for all five data/selection variants shown, but the bands are wide enough that neither vanishing nor percent-level backreaction can be excluded. The authors present the work as a first, deliberately low-assumption demonstration that forthcoming survey data should tighten the same observable combination.

Significance. If the reconstructions and the fair-sampling assumption hold, the paper supplies the first direct, redshift-resolved observational handle on a backreaction density-parameter combination that vanishes identically in ΛCDM. The approach is complementary to the local CosmicFlows-based constraints of Galoppo et al. (in prep.), probes hypersurfaces tied to the observed redshift–distance relation, and deliberately avoids parametric scaling ansätze for Q_D. Strengths include the explicit multi-variant robustness checks (five BAO/selection combinations), the clear separation of median versus uncertainty-band interpretation, and the frank statement that present constraints remain only a proof-of-principle. The result is therefore mainly methodological and preparatory, but it establishes a concrete, falsifiable path for future surveys.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and §IV claim “first direct constraints on the total cosmic backreaction,” yet the observable is strictly Ω_R + 3Ω_Q (Eq. 10). The authors themselves note (citing Buchert) that this combination can vanish while the dynamically relevant sum Ω_R + Ω_Q remains O(0.01). The abstract and conclusion should therefore state the constrained combination explicitly and avoid the unqualified phrase “total cosmic backreaction,” which overstates what Eq. 10 measures.
  2. §III and Figs. 1–2: the uncertainty bands are the sole scientifically usable product, yet their calibration is inherited wholesale from the companion reconstruction paper. The present manuscript never quantifies the relative contributions of (i) r_d marginalization (±2 Mpc), (ii) BAO sparsity, and (iii) symbolic-regression hyper-parameter/selection variance. Without at least a rough decomposition (or a clear pointer to a calibrated coverage test in the companion work), it is impossible for a reader to judge how much forthcoming data will actually shrink the bands—the central forward-looking claim of the paper.
  3. §II (paragraphs after Eq. 11): the identification of the right-hand side of Eq. 10 with Ω_R + 3Ω_Q rests on α ≈ 1. The sole justification offered is that existing distance-duality tests are consistent with no violation at 2σ. Because the entire physical interpretation of the result hinges on this step, the paper should either (a) propagate a conservative residual α-uncertainty into the reported bands or (b) rephrase the result as a joint constraint on (Ω_R + 3Ω_Q, α) and state the α = 1 specialization more prominently in the abstract.
minor comments (6)
  1. Fig. 1, bottom-right panel: axis label and caption text are corrupted (mojibake / non-Latin characters). Replace with the same English label used in the other panels.
  2. Fig. 2 captions and axis labels likewise contain encoding artifacts; clean for production.
  3. §II, Eq. (4): the typographical parenthesis “((θ²)_D) − (θ_D)²” is unbalanced; correct to the standard Buchert form 2/3[(θ²)_D − (θ_D)²] − 2(σ²)_D.
  4. §III: the statement that shear averages to zero “if e^μ is isotropically distributed” is plausible but terse; a one-sentence reference to the relevant BAO survey geometry or to an existing isotropy test would help non-specialist readers.
  5. References [37] and the CosmicFlows comparison are “in preparation”; either update the citation status or soften the comparative claims until that work is public.
  6. Throughout: ⟨z⟩ is introduced carefully, yet the figure axes are simply labelled “z”. A brief reminder in the figure captions (already present in one place) should be uniform.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity in the backreaction combination; only ordinary load-bearing use of the author's companion reconstructions and openly shown hyperparameter sensitivity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III, first paragraph and Fig. 1 caption]
    "Indeed, we will here use the reconstructed⟨D A⟩,H D and their derivatives obtained for the work presented in [17], to here obtain the constraints on Ω R + 3ΩQ. ... The results were obtained from reconstructing⟨D A⟩andH D as described in [17]."

    The concrete numerical bands that constitute the paper's main result are taken directly from the author's own companion reconstructions rather than being independently re-derived; the present work therefore load-bearingly inherits both the symbolic expressions and the hyper-parameter choices of [17]. This is ordinary sequential-paper dependence, not a definitional reduction of the backreaction combination itself.

full rationale

The central relation (Eq. 10) is obtained by rearranging the independent light-propagation identity of Heinesen & Clifton [8] under the fair-sampling assumption; it is not defined in terms of the data products that are later plugged into it. The numerical evaluation simply inserts model-independent symbolic-regression reconstructions of D and H_D (taken from the companion paper [17]) into that already-derived combination. This is the intended observational procedure, not a prediction forced by a fit or a definitional tautology. The paper itself displays five variants under different data cuts and selection criteria, notes that medians should not be over-interpreted, and emphasizes that the uncertainty bands remain too broad to exclude either vanishing or percent-level backreaction. The sole mild self-citation issue is that the concrete input functions come from a co-authored companion rather than being re-derived here; that dependence is transparent and does not reduce the claimed constraints to their inputs by construction. Distance-duality tests used to justify α≈1 are external. Hence only a low score is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Buchert averaging scheme, the light-propagation equations of Räsänen and Koksbang, the assumption that BAO radial modes measure H_D after shear averages to zero, a narrow prior on the sound-horizon scale, and the fairness of light sampling. No new dynamical entities are postulated; free parameters are limited to the r_d marginalization window and the hyper-parameters of the symbolic-regression pipeline.

free parameters (2)
  • r_d marginalization window = ±2 Mpc around Planck value
    Sound-horizon scale is marginalized over ±2 Mpc around the Planck ΛCDM best-fit value; the width is chosen by hand to reduce model dependence while still assuming standard early-universe physics.
  • symbolic-regression hyper-parameters and selection criteria
    Three different expression-selection criteria sets and two BAO data combinations are used; the quantitative bands shift with these choices, showing they function as free technical parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Scalar averages of the Raychaudhuri and Hamiltonian equations yield the Buchert equations containing Q_D and R_D.
    Standard Buchert formalism (Eqs. 2–4); assumed valid on domains above the homogeneity scale.
  • domain assumption On statistically homogeneous and isotropic hypersurfaces, ⟨z⟩ = 1/a_D − 1 and the redshift-distance relation (Eq. 8) holds up to statistical fluctuations.
    Taken from Räsänen and Koksbang light-propagation results; required to convert observables into Ω_R + 3Ω_Q.
  • domain assumption Light samples the spacetime volume fairly (α ≈ 1), so the measured combination equals Ω_R + 3Ω_Q rather than a Dyer-Roeder parameter.
    Justified by existing distance-duality tests being consistent with no violation at 2σ; if false the interpretation of the right-hand side of Eq. 10 changes.
  • domain assumption Radial BAO measures H_D r_d after fluid acceleration and shear average to zero on the survey scales.
    Stated in Section III; required to convert BAO data into H_D.
  • ad hoc to paper Bootstrap symbolic regression with the listed algorithms yields unbiased reconstructions of D(z) and H_D(z) whose uncertainty bands contain the true functions.
    Method introduced in companion paper [17]; the present work inherits its technical model dependence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A First Observational Assessment of Cosmic Backreaction Over an Extended Redshift Range." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UGSX3ABX

@misc{pith2026260411249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A First Observational Assessment of Cosmic Backreaction Over an Extended Redshift Range},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UGSX3ABX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.11249}
}
read the original abstract

In the recent preprint arXiv:2604.07244v1, the authors introduce a novel combination of redshift, distance, and expansion rate observables for constraining cosmic backreaction observationally. The current work presents a first application of the method, in principle yielding the first direct constraints on the total cosmic backreaction in our universe over a significant redshift range. However, we find that current data are not yet sufficient to place tight constraints on backreaction. Thus, neither vanishing nor significant backreaction can be ruled out with the presented constraints. Nonetheless, the results suggest that forthcoming survey data will enable enlightening constraints on cosmic backreaction using this method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Constraints on Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

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. Backreaction and the Role of Spatial Curvature in the Cosmic Neighborhood

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Average spatial curvature contributes about 10% to the local cosmic energy budget on scales up to 300 Mpc/h while kinematical backreaction stays below 1% on the smallest scales, with no convergence to the global Lambd...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The resulting bounds are consistent with a flat FLRW cosmology and thus with the standard ΛCDM model at the one-sigma level

    to place observational constraints on the backreaction parameter combination ΩR + 3ΩQ. The resulting bounds are consistent with a flat FLRW cosmology and thus with the standard ΛCDM model at the one-sigma level. How- ever, since we are constraining ΩR +3Ω Q and not the two components individually, it is important to note that this specific combination can...

  2. [2]

    Adam Riess, The Expansion of The Universe is Faster than Expected, Nat Rev Phys 2, 10-12,2020, arXiv:2001.03624v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Lodha et al., Extended Dark Energy analysis us- ing DESI DR2 BAO measurements, arXiv:2503.14743v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Lodha et al., Extended Dark Energy analysis us- ing DESI DR2 BAO measurements, arXiv:2503.14743v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Deng Wang, David Mota, Did DESI DR2 truly reveal dynamical dark energy?, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1356 (2025), arXiv:2504.15222v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Marina Cortes, Andrew R Liddle, On DESI’s DR2 exclu- sion of ΛCDM, Mon Not R Astron Soc Lett 544 (2025) L121-L125, arXiv:2504.15336v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Nathan Secrest et al., Colloquium: The Cosmic Dipole Anomaly, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97 (2025) 041001, arXiv:2505.23526v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Sebastian von Hausegger et al., Clustering properties of the CatWISE2020 quasar catalogue and their impact on the cosmic dipole anomaly, Mon Not R Astron Soc (2026), arXiv:2510.23769v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale

    Sylos Labini, F., Galoppo, M. Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale. Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10702-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10702-5 2026

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Asta Heinesen and Timothy Clifton, Observational Tests for Distinguishing Classes of Cosmological Models, arXiv:2604.07244v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dyer and R

    C. Dyer and R. Roeder, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 180, p. L31 180, L31 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    32 (2000) 105-125, arXiv:gr-qc/9906015v2

    Thomas Buchert, On average properties of inhomoge- neous fluids in general relativity I: dust cosmologies, Gen.Rel.Grav. 32 (2000) 105-125, arXiv:gr-qc/9906015v2

    2000 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Thomas Buchert, On average properties of inhomo- geneous fluids in general relativity II: perfect fluid cosmologies, Gen.Rel.Grav.33:1381-1405,2001, arXiv:gr- qc/0102049v2

    2001

  5. [13]

    Syksy Rasanen, Light propagation in statistically homogeneous and isotropic dust universes, JCAP 0902:011,2009, arXiv:0812.2872v2 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Syksy Rasanen, Light propagation in statistically ho- mogeneous and isotropic universes with general matter content, JCAP 1003:018,2010, arXiv:0912.3370v2 [astro- ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. M. Koksbang, Another look at redshift drift and the backreaction conjecture, JCAP10(2019)036, arXiv:1909.13489v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    S. M. Koksbang, Observations in statistically homoge- neous, locally inhomogeneous cosmological toy-models without FLRW backgrounds, MNRAS 498, L135-L139 (2020), arXiv:2008.07108v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020

  9. [18]

    S. M. Koksbang and A. Heinesen, Model-independent constraints on generalized FLRW consistency re- lations with bootstrap-based symbolic regression, arXiv:2604.05822v1 [astro-ph.CO],accepted for publica- tion in PRD

    arXiv

  10. [19]

    Dan Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Dataset and Light-Curve Release, 2022 ApJ 938 113, arXiv:2112.03863v2 [astro-ph.CO] 6

    2022 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Helion du Mas des Bourboux et al., The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Sur- vey: Baryon acoustic oscillations with Lyman-αforests, 2020 ApJ 901 2 153, arXiv:2007.08995v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Jiamin Hou et al., The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from anisotropic clustering analysis of the Quasar Sample in configuration space between red- shift 0.8 and 2.2, MNRAS Volume 500, Issue 1, 2021, arXiv:2007.0899...

    2021 arXiv

  13. [22]

    eBOSS Collaboration, The Completed SDSS-IV ex- tended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmo- logical Implications from two Decades of Spectroscopic Surveys at the Apache Point observatory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Shadab Alam et al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sam- ple, MNRAS, Volume 470, Issue 3, 2017, 2617–2652, arXiv:1607.03155v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Raichoor et al., Target Selection and Valida- tion of DESI Emission Line Galaxies, AJ 165 126, arXiv:2208.08513v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Raichoor et al., Target Selection and Valida- tion of DESI Emission Line Galaxies, AJ 165 126, arXiv:2208.08513v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  16. [25]

    DESI Collaboration, DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Con- straints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, JCAP 02 (2025) 021, arXiv:2404.03002v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Rongpu Zhou et al., Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies, AJ 165 58 (2023), arXiv:2208.08515v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [27]

    DESI Collaboration, DESI DR2 Results II: Measure- ments of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmo- logical Constraints, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083515, 2025, arXiv:2503.14738v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Bassett, Renee Hlozek, Baryon Acoustic Oscil- lations, Dark Energy, Ed

    Bruce A. Bassett, Renee Hlozek, Baryon Acoustic Oscil- lations, Dark Energy, Ed. P. Ruiz-Lapuente (2010, ISBN- 13: 9780521518888), arXiv:0910.5224v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [29]

    S. M. Koksbang, On the relationship between mean ob- servations, spatial averages and the Dyer-Roeder approx- imation in Einstein-Straus models, JCAP11(2020)061, arXiv:2010.04500v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [30]

    S. M. Koksbang, Understanding the Dyer-Roeder ap- proximation as a consequence of local cancellations of projected shear and expansion rate fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043505 (2021), arXiv:2106.12913v1 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Sofie Marie Koksbang, Syksy Rasanen, The effect of dark matter discreteness on light propagation, JCAP04(2022)030, arXiv:2108.06163v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [32]

    1121-1136 (2012), arXiv:1109.2484v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    Chris Clarkson, George Ellis, Andreas Faltenbacher, Roy Maartens, Obinna Umeh, Jean-Philippe Uzan, (Mis- )Interpreting supernovae observations in a lumpy uni- verse, MNRAS, Volume 426, Issue 2, pp. 1121-1136 (2012), arXiv:1109.2484v3 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Etherington, On the definition of distance in gen- eral relativity, Phil

    I.M.H. Etherington, On the definition of distance in gen- eral relativity, Phil. Mag. 15, 761. Reprinted as Gen. Rel. Grav. 39 (2007)

    2007

  25. [34]

    Yukang Xie, Yang Liu, Puxun Wu, Xiangyun Fu, Nan Liang, Testing the Distance Duality Relation with Cos- mological Observations at high Redshift using Artificial Neural Network, Physics of the Dark Universe 52 (2026) 102316, arXiv:2512.06454v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Felipe Avila, Fernanda Oliveira, Camila Franco, Maria Lopes, Rodrigo Holanda, Rafael C. Nunes, Armando Bernui, Probing the Cosmic Distance Duality Relation via Non-Parametric Reconstruction for High Redshifts, Universe 2025, 11(9), 307, arXiv:2509.07848v1 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Anna Chiara Alfano, Orlando Luongo, Cosmic distance duality after DESI 2024 data release and dark energy evo- lution, 10.1016/j.dark.2025.102205, arXiv:2501.15233v1 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Thomas Buchert, Dark Energy from structure: a status report, Gen.Rel.Grav.40:467-527,2008, arXiv:0707.2153v3 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Marco Galoppo, Thomas Buchert and Pierre Mourier, in preparation

  30. [39]

    Brent Tully et al., Cosmicflows-4, 2023 ApJ 944 94, arXiv:2209.11238v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Brent Tully et al., Cosmicflows-4, 2023 ApJ 944 94, arXiv:2209.11238v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Feldman, Rachel Cionitti, Yara Al-Shorman, Ehsan Kourkchi, R

    Richard Watkins, Trey Allen, Collin James Brad- ford, Albert Ramon Jr., Alexandra Walker, Hume A. Feldman, Rachel Cionitti, Yara Al-Shorman, Ehsan Kourkchi, R. Brent Tully, Analyzing the Large-Scale Bulk Flow using CosmicFlows4: In- creasing Tension with the Standard Cosmologi...

    doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    Courtois, Jeremy Mould, Amber M

    Helene M. Courtois, Jeremy Mould, Amber M. Hollinger, Alexandra Dupuy, Chuan-Peng Zhang, In search for the Local Universe dynamical homogeneity scale with CF4++ peculiar velocities, A&A 701, A187 (2025), arXiv:2502.01308v2 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  33. [42]

    Silviu-Marian Udrescu, Max Tegmark, AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regres- sion, Science Advances, 6:eaay2631, April 15, 2020, arXiv:1905.11481v2 [physics.comp-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Silviu-Marian Udrescu, Andrew Tan, Jiahai Feng, Oris- valdo Neto, Tailin Wu, Max Tegmark, AI Feynman 2.0: Pareto-optimal symbolic regression exploiting graph modularity, 34th Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (Neurips 2020), Vancouver, Canada, arXiv:2006.10...

    2020 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Niels Johan Christensen , et al., Identifying interactions in omics data for clinical biomarker discovery using sym- bolic regression, Bioinformatics, Volume 38, Issue 15, Au- gust 2022, Pages 3749–3758

    2022

  36. [45]

    Fabricio Olivetti de Franca, Guilherme Seidyo Imai Aldeia, Interaction-Transformation Evolutionary Algo- rithm for Symbolic Regression, GECCO ’22: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Confer- ence Companion, arXiv:1902.03983v4 [cs.LG]

    1902 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Guilherme Espada, Leon Ingelse, Paulo Canelas, Pedro Barbosa and Alcides Fonseca, Datatypes as a More Er- gonomic Frontend for Grammar-Guided Genetic Pro- gramming, GPCE ’22: Concepts and Experiences, Auck- land, NZ, December 6 - 7, 2022

    2022

  38. [47]

    Thing, Sofie M

    Mattias E. Thing, Sofie M. Koksbang, cp3-bench: A tool for benchmarking symbolic regression algorithms tested with cosmology, JCAP01(2025)040, arXiv:2406.15531v2 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Miles Cranmer, Interpretable Machine Learning for Science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl, arXiv:2305.01582v3 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.