Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Benchmarking symbolic regression constant optimization schemes

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.02126 v1 pith:SKQTJWQ4 submitted 2024-12-03 cs.LG cs.AIphysics.comp-ph

classification cs.LGcs.AIphysics.comp-ph
keywords differentoptimizationsymbolicconstantmethodsregressionbestbetter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Symbolic regression is a machine learning technique, and it has seen many advancements in recent years, especially in genetic programming approaches (GPSR). Furthermore, it has been known for many years that constant optimization of parameters, during the evolutionary search, greatly increases GPSR performance However, different authors approach such tasks differently and no consensus exists regarding which methods perform best. In this work, we evaluate eight different parameter optimization methods, applied during evolutionary search, over ten known benchmark problems, in two different scenarios. We also propose using an under-explored metric called Tree Edit Distance (TED), aiming to identify symbolic accuracy. In conjunction with classical error measures, we develop a combined analysis of model performance in symbolic regression. We then show that different constant optimization methods perform better in certain scenarios and that there is no overall best choice for every problem. Finally, we discuss how common metric decisions may be biased and appear to generate better models in comparison.

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. Attractor Geometry Determines the Identifiability Limits of System Discovery

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The smallest eigenvalue of the attractor's invariant-measure moment matrix — not the choice of algorithm — sets the identifiability ceiling for recovering governing equations from trajectory data.

Pith tools