Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 253 references

Data-driven discovery of dynamical models in biology

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review unifies regression, network, and decomposition methods as approximations of the Koopman operator, and benchmarks them on the Oregonator model to guide method choice in biology.

desk verdict A useful Koopman-framed review of data-driven model discovery, but the SINDy 'exact recovery' claim in Info Box III is contradicted by the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06735 v2 pith:Q6M2TBZE submitted 2025-09-08 q-bio.QM

Bartosz Prokop , Lendert Gelens This is my paper
classification q-bio.QM
keywords data-drivenmodeldiscoveryKoopmanoperatorOregonatorSINDydynamicmodedecompositionneuralnetworksbiologicaloscillatorssystemidentification
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 the three main families of data-driven dynamical modeling methods—regression-based, network-based, and decomposition-based—are best understood as different finite-dimensional approximations of the Koopman operator, a linear representation of nonlinear dynamics. To make this concrete, the authors apply representative methods from each family to a common benchmark, the Oregonator model of the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, and compare how well each recovers the underlying equations, forecasts future states, and identifies interactions. The central message is that no single family dominates: their strengths and weaknesses are complementary, and the right choice depends on the biological question, the available data quality, and the degree of prior knowledge. The authors also argue that hybrid methods—combining symbolic regression, neural networks, and dimensionality reduction—are the most promising direction. This matters because it gives biologists a practical, methodologically grounded route from time-series measurements to mechanistic insight.

What carries the argument

The Koopman operator: a linear operator that acts on observables of a nonlinear dynamical system, allowing the nonlinear evolution to be represented as a linear (possibly infinite-dimensional) system in a lifted space. The review uses this operator as a conceptual umbrella: regression methods like SINDy approximate its generator by choosing sparse term libraries, network methods learn Koopman-like embeddings in latent spaces, and decomposition methods like DMD and extended DMD approximate the operator directly from snapshot data. The Oregonator, a minimal three-variable oscillator model, serves as the shared benchmark that makes these approximations concrete and comparable.

What would settle it

Run the same three method families—SINDy, a feed-forward neural network, and extended DMD—on a high-quality experimental time series from a well-characterized biological oscillator (e.g., circadian clock or cell-cycle reporter data) with known ground-truth interactions, and check whether the relative performance ordering matches Table I. If, for example, SINDy succeeds on experimental data with realistic noise and partial observability where the review predicts failure, or if a simple neural network outperforms the reported hybrid methods, the benchmark's representativeness would be called int

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim is that regression-based, network-based, and decomposition-based approaches to model discovery in biological dynamics can all be viewed as different strategies for approximating the Koopman operator, with each strategy making distinct trade-offs among interpretability, flexibility, and data requirements. Using the Oregonator as a shared testbed, the authors show that SINDy exactly recovers the original model under ideal conditions (high temporal resolution, no noise, full state observability, and a sufficiently rich library), but fails under realistic perturbations: added noise, partial observability, or an incomplete library. Feed-forward neural networks can repro

Load-bearing premise

The review assumes that the Oregonator benchmark, simulated under ideal conditions with synthetic noise-free or lightly noisy data, is representative of the challenges of real biological time series, so that the comparative guidance in Table I transfers to experimental datasets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Koopman-based framing is accepted, comparing methods by their observable-lifting strategy becomes more natural than comparing them by white-box versus black-box labels, which the authors argue are often misleading.
  • The benchmark results imply that regression-based discovery in biology will continue to require high-quality, densely sampled, fully observed data; relaxing any of those conditions sharply degrades performance.
  • The demonstrated failure modes of neural networks—narrow generalization and architecture sensitivity—support the push toward physics-informed or biologically informed network architectures that constrain the learned dynamics.
  • Decomposition methods, though computationally efficient, will only be reliably useful in biology when the data cover sufficiently rich dynamical regimes and when appropriate lifting functions can be specified or learned.
  • The complementary strengths identified in Table III point toward hybrid methods—combining sparse symbolic regression, autoencoders, and nullcline-based geometric approaches—as the most practical route for real biological datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The review compares methods on idealized synthetic data; a natural extension would be to apply the same battery to real biological oscillators (e.g., circadian or cell-cycle time series) to test whether the qualitative ratings in Table I transfer to experimental noise, missing variables, and irregular sampling.
  • The Koopman lens suggests a concrete design principle: the choice of lifting functions—whether polynomial libraries, neural embeddings, or delay coordinates—is the single most decisive factor separating success from failure, so future benchmarks could focus on adaptive or learned lifting rather than on fixed libraries.
  • The paper's emphasis on forecasting, interactions, and states implies that the same dataset can be mined in three distinct ways; a practical workflow could first use decomposition to identify dominant modes, then regression to extract symbolic equations for those modes, and finally network methods to capture residual nonlinearities.
  • The Oregonator results hint that partial observability is a more fundamental obstacle than noise for regression methods, suggesting that embedding-based preprocessing (e.g., Takens-style delay embeddings) might rescue SINDy and related approaches in many biological settings where full state measurements are impossible.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of data-driven methods for discovering dynamical models in biology, organized into regression-based, network-based, and decomposition-based families and unified through Koopman operator theory. It applies representative methods to a common benchmark, the Oregonator model, and rates the methods on forecasting, interaction inference, state characterization, prior-knowledge requirements, and interpretability (Table I). The central claim is that the three methodological families are complementary approximations of the Koopman operator and that applying them to a common oscillator benchmark exposes practical strengths and limitations that should guide method selection.

Significance. If the benchmark demonstrations were reliable, the review would be a valuable entry point for biologists: it draws explicit connections to Koopman theory, surveys a wide literature, discusses hybrid methods, and makes code available. The conceptual organization is useful and the comparative table is a practical synthesis. However, the strongest concrete benchmark claim — that SINDy 'exactly recovers the original model' under ideal conditions — is contradicted by the displayed Eq. (19), which is not equivalent to Eq. (3) up to any positive rescaling. Because this claim underpins the review's assessment of regression-based interpretability and feeds into Table I, the benchmark evidence needs to be corrected before the comparative guidance can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Info Box III, Eq. (19) vs. Eq. (3)] The statement 'SINDy exactly recovers the original model' is not supported by the displayed equation. Eq. (3) has u_t = p[u(1-u) - v(u-q)] = p u - p u^2 - p uv + p q v, so the coefficients of u and u^2 must have opposite signs for any positive scaling of variables and time. In Eq. (19), the u equation has -42.241u and -0.500u^2, i.e. both negative, which is impossible. The v equation also has sign mismatches: Eq. (3) gives positive coefficients for v and uv and a negative coefficient for w, while Eq. (19) gives negative v and uv coefficients and a positive w coefficient. The w equation is proportional to u-w by a factor 0.333, which would require a time rescaling inconsistent with the other equations. Thus Eq. (19) is not the Oregonator up to scaling. If a centered, scaled, or otherwise transformed coordinate system was used, that transformation must be stated explicitly; as written, the
  2. [Info Boxes V and VI] The FFNN and eDMD benchmark descriptions are largely qualitative and lack the details needed to assess the comparative claims. Info Box V states that a three-layer network 'is able to reproduce the qualitative dynamical behavior within the training domain' but 'fails to generalize to unseen initial conditions,' without defining the training data length, noise level, architecture search, or error metric. Info Box VI similarly reports only that eDMD 'captures the qualitative dynamical behavior' or 'fails' in various regimes. Since the review's central guidance rests on these benchmark comparisons, each box should report concrete simulation settings (data length, sampling, noise, parameter values) and quantitative error measures, or the boxes should be explicitly framed as illustrative rather than evidence. This is especially important because the SINDy box already contains a quantitative c
minor comments (5)
  1. [Info Box V] 'Different activation energy (ReLU to Tanh)' should read 'different activation function.'
  2. [Section III.B, Info Box III] 'Ridge regression with a cutoff' is not the standard SINDy algorithm, which uses sequential thresholded least squares or a related sparse-regression scheme. Please clarify the exact fitting procedure used to obtain Eq. (19).
  3. [Table I] The legend for the circle and triangle symbols is not fully explained in the text. In particular, it is unclear how 'Prior Knowledge' is rated as a requirement versus a capability. A short explanation of the rating scale and how the ratings were determined would improve auditability.
  4. [References and table entries] Several year/citation mismatches occur in Table I: NARMAX is listed as 1986 but the cited paper is 1989; SVM is listed as 1997 but the cited paper is 1996; Symbolic Deep Learning is listed as 2020 but the cited paper is 2019. Please correct these.
  5. [Info Box III] The term library is written as Θ = [u, v, w, u2, v2, w2, uv, uw, vw]. Use consistent superscript notation (e.g., u^2) to avoid confusion with subscripts used elsewhere for time derivatives.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's comparative claims rest on a broad external literature; minor self-citations to the authors' own CLINE and SINDy work are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a review, not a derivation-based study. Its central claims are taxonomic and comparative: that regression-, network-, and decomposition-based methods can be viewed as approximations of the Koopman operator, and that applying them to a common Oregonator benchmark illustrates complementary strengths and limitations. The Koopman framework is presented as an interpretive lens supported by classical theory and external citations, not as a result derived from a fitted input. The Oregonator demonstrations in Info Boxes III, V, and VI are benchmark validations: synthetic data generated from a known model are used to test whether methods recover qualitative behavior. These are tests of the methods, not circular predictions. The strongest assertion, that SINDy 'exactly recovers the original model,' is a recovery claim about a fitted model; even if the displayed Eq. (19) is algebraically inconsistent with Eq. (3), as an internal consistency critique would note, that is a correctness/accuracy issue, not circularity. The only self-references are [103] (the authors' CLINE paper) and [139] (the authors' SINDy application). CLINE is one of many methods rated in Table I, and the review's comparative conclusions rest on a broad external literature (e.g., SINDy [93], GOBI [95], Neural ODEs [101], DMD [106], eDMD [107], HAVOK [108]). These self-citations are therefore not load-bearing for the review's central message, and no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review's central claims are qualitative and rest on three unproven premises: the representativeness of the Oregonator benchmark, the validity of the Koopman unification for all listed methods, and the accuracy of the subjective ratings in Table I. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Oregonator model captures shared design principles of chemical and biological oscillators.
    Invoked in Section I.C and used as the universal benchmark for all comparisons; if not representative, the comparative conclusions may not transfer to biological systems.
  • domain assumption Koopman operator theory provides a unifying framework that applies to all reviewed methods.
    Section II asserts that regression, network, and decomposition methods can be viewed as approximations of the Koopman operator; this is a conceptual framing, not proven for every cited algorithm.
  • domain assumption The ratings in Table I reflect the relative capabilities of the methods.
    The circles and triangles in Table I are assigned by the authors without a quantitative evaluation protocol; they are subjective summary judgments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-driven discovery of dynamical models in biology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6M2TBZE

@misc{pith2026250906735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-driven discovery of dynamical models in biology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6M2TBZE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06735}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamical systems theory provides a mathematical framework for describing how interacting biological components evolve over time and space, from molecular oscillators to large-scale biological patterns. Such systems often involve nonlinear feedbacks, delays, and multiscale interactions, making mechanistic model construction increasingly challenging as experimental measurements become richer and higher-dimensional. This has motivated the development of data-driven approaches that infer model structure directly from data, offering alternative routes to constructing dynamical models. In this review, we discuss and compare data-driven approaches for model discovery in biological dynamical systems, focusing on three major methodological families: regression-based methods, network-based architectures, and decomposition techniques. We compare how these approaches address three core objectives: forecasting future behavior, identifying interactions between system components, and characterizing qualitative dynamical solutions such as steady states, oscillations, and transitions between them. To enable a direct comparison, representative methods are applied to a common benchmark - the Oregonator model - a minimal nonlinear oscillator that captures shared design principles of chemical and biological systems. By highlighting practical strengths, limitations, and degrees of interpretability, this review aims to guide researchers in selecting appropriate tools for analyzing complex, nonlinear, and high-dimensional biological dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06735 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Examples of hybrid methods integrating regression- and network-based approaches. UDEs combine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

253 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Biological data often violate these assumptions

    Strict data requirements: derivative estimation amplifies noise; dense, high-resolution time series are often essential. Biological data often violate these assumptions

  2. [2]

    With- out such priors, spurious or uninterpretable models often result

    Dependence on prior knowledge: success de- pends on access to all relevant state variables and informed choices of libraries or operator sets. With- out such priors, spurious or uninterpretable models often result

  3. [3]

    black boxes,

    Scaling issues: high-dimensional biological net- works exacerbate the curse of dimensionality and limit applicability. These challenges are not merely theoretical but are consistently observed in practice. For instance, apply- ing SINDy to the Oregonator model shows that under ideal conditions—complete observability, sufficiently rich libraries, and low-n...

  4. [4]

    (31) With linear activations, this reduces to a principal component analysis (PCA) [182]; with nonlinear activa- tions, it can uncover richer feature spaces [183]. 13 Box V: A feed-forward neural network to approximate Oregonator data To illustrate opportunities and pitfalls of FFNNs, we train a network on synthetic data from the Oregonator model aiming t...

  5. [5]

    Lack of interpretability: the high-dimensional embeddings rarely align with mechanistic biological meaning, in contrast to regression-derived symbolic models

  6. [6]

    Dependence on architecture: performance de- pends strongly on architecture and hyperparame- ters, often requiring costly trial-and-error

  7. [7]

    To highlight these challenges in more detail, we tested the ability of a FFNN to capture the oscillatory dynamics of the Oregonator model in Info Box V

    Limited generalization: generalization beyond the training domain is weak, particularly with noisy or undersampled biological data. To highlight these challenges in more detail, we tested the ability of a FFNN to capture the oscillatory dynamics of the Oregonator model in Info Box V. Domain-informed variants such as PINNs, BINNs, and Koopman-inspired V AE...

  8. [8]

    As DMD and eDMD fit global linear operators, the data must capture diverse dynamical regimes to yield meaningful approximations

    Requirement for sufficiently rich dynamics. As DMD and eDMD fit global linear operators, the data must capture diverse dynamical regimes to yield meaningful approximations. When dynamics are dominated by switching, noise, or short tran- sients — common in biological datasets — these methods fail to generalize. While noise-robust vari- ants exist [207, 208...

Show all 253 references
  1. [9]

    The success of eDMD depends on choosing appropriate nonlinear lifting functions g, a challenge shared with regression approaches like SINDy

    Dependence on prior knowledge for inter- pretability . The success of eDMD depends on choosing appropriate nonlinear lifting functions g, a challenge shared with regression approaches like SINDy. Without careful selection, the resulting modes may lack mechanistic meaning, unde...

    1976

  2. [10]

    S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engi- neering (CRC Press, 2000) pp. 1–513

    2000

  3. [11]

    J. J. Tyson, K. C. Chen, and B. Novak, Sniffers, buzzers, toggles and blinkers: dynamics of regulatory and signal- ing pathways in the cell, Current opinion in cell biology 15, 221 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Goldbeter, C

    A. Goldbeter, C. G´ erard, D. Gonze, J.-C. Leloup, and G. Dupont, Systems biology of cellular rhythms, FEBS letters 586, 2955 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Gelens, G

    L. Gelens, G. A. Anderson, and J. E. Ferrell Jr, Spatial trigger waves: positive feedback gets you a long way, Molecular biology of the cell 25, 3486 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Beta and K

    C. Beta and K. Kruse, Intracellular oscillations and waves, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 8, 239 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    V. E. Deneke and S. Di Talia, Chemical waves in cell and developmental biology, Journal of Cell Biology217, 1193 (2018). 19

    2018

  8. [16]

    Volpert and S

    V. Volpert and S. Petrovskii, Reaction–diffusion waves in biology, Physics of life reviews 6, 267 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    A. Goldbeter, Dissipative structures in biological sys- tems: bistability, oscillations, spatial patterns and waves, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376, 20170376 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    J. E. Ferrell, T. Y.-C. Tsai, and Q. Yang, Modeling the cell cycle: why do certain circuits oscillate?, Cell 144, 874 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Novak and J

    B. Novak and J. J. Tyson, Modeling the cell division cycle: M-phase trigger, oscillations, and size control, Journal of Theoretical Biology 165, 101 (1993)

    1993

  12. [20]

    J. C. Dunlap, Molecular bases for circadian clocks, Cell 96, 271 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Bell-Pedersen, V

    D. Bell-Pedersen, V. M. Cassone, D. J. Earnest, S. S. Golden, P. E. Hardin, T. L. Thomas, and M. J. Zoran, Circadian rhythms from multiple oscillators: lessons from diverse organisms, Nature Reviews Genetics 6, 544 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    M. J. Berridge and A. Galione, Cytosolic calcium oscil- lators, The F ASEB Journal 2, 3074 (1988)

    1988

  15. [23]

    J. M. Borghans, G. Dupont, and A. Goldbeter, Com- plex intracellular calcium oscillations a theoretical ex- ploration of possible mechanisms, Biophysical chemistry 66, 25 (1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    Ghosh and B

    A. Ghosh and B. Chance, Oscillations of glycolytic in- termediates in yeast cells, Biochemical and biophysical research communications 16, 174 (1964)

    1964

  17. [25]

    F. A. Chandra, G. Buzi, and J. C. Doyle, Glycolytic oscillations and limits on robust efficiency, science 333, 187 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Geva-Zatorsky, N

    N. Geva-Zatorsky, N. Rosenfeld, S. Itzkovitz, R. Milo, A. Sigal, E. Dekel, T. Yarnitzky, Y. Liron, P. Polak, G. Lahav, et al. , Oscillations and variability in the p53 system, Molecular systems biology 2, 2006 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Batchelor, C

    E. Batchelor, C. S. Mock, I. Bhan, A. Loewer, and G. Lahav, Recurrent initiation: a mechanism for trig- gering p53 pulses in response to dna damage, Molecular cell 30, 277 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    J. E. Purvis, K. W. Karhohs, C. Mock, E. Batchelor, A. Loewer, and G. Lahav, p53 dynamics control cell fate, Science 336, 1440 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley, Action potentials recorded from inside a nerve fibre, Nature 144, 710 (1939)

    1939

  22. [30]

    A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley, A quantitative de- scription of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve, J. Physiol. 117, 500 (1952)

    1952

  23. [31]

    E. M. Izhikevich, Dynamical systems in neuroscience (MIT press, 2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    J. B. Chang and J. E. Ferrell Jr, Mitotic trigger waves and the spatial coordination of the xenopus cell cycle, Nature 500, 603 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    F. E. Nolet, A. Vandervelde, A. Vanderbeke, L. Pi˜ neros, J. B. Chang, and L. Gelens, Nuclei determine the spatial origin of mitotic waves, eLife 9, 10.7554/ELIFE.52868 (2020)

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Afanzar, G

    O. Afanzar, G. K. Buss, T. Stearns, and J. E. Ferrell Jr, The nucleus serves as the pacemaker for the cell cycle, Elife 9, e59989 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    O. Puls, D. Ruiz-Reyn´ es, F. Tavella, M. Jin, Y. Kim, L. Gelens, and Q. Yang, Spatial heterogeneity acceler- ates phase-to-trigger wave transitions in frog egg ex- tracts, Nature Communications 2024 15:1 15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    V. E. Deneke, A. Melbinger, M. Vergassola, and S. Di Talia, Waves of cdk1 activity in s phase synchro- nize the cell cycle in drosophila embryos, Developmental cell 38, 399 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    P. N. Devreotes, M. J. Potel, and S. A. MacKay, Quan- titative analysis of cyclic amp waves mediating aggre- gation in dictyostelium discoideum, Developmental bi- ology 96, 405 (1983)

    1983

  30. [38]

    J. J. Tyson and J. Murray, Cyclic amp waves during ag- gregation of dictyostelium amoebae, Development 106, 421 (1989)

    1989

  31. [39]

    De Simone, M

    A. De Simone, M. N. Evanitsky, L. Hayden, B. D. Cox, J. Wang, V. A. Tornini, J. Ou, A. Chao, K. D. Poss, and S. Di Talia, Control of osteoblast regeneration by a train of erk activity waves, Nature 590, 129 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    R. J. Field, E. K¨ or¨ os, and R. M. Noyes, Oscillations in Chemical Systems. II. Thorough Analysis of Temporal Oscillation in the Bromate–Cerium–Malonic Acid Sys- tem, Journal of the American Chemical Society94, 8649 (1972)

    1972

  33. [41]

    S. W. Morris, Belousov zhabotinsky reaction, Flickr (2009), taken on November 6, 2004; uploaded May 28, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Rombouts, F

    J. Rombouts, F. Tavella, A. Vandervelde, C. Phong, J. E. Ferrell Jr, Q. Yang, and L. Gelens, Mechanistic origins of temperature scaling in the early embryonic cell cycle, bioRxiv , 2024 (2025)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Cebri´ an-Lacasa, L

    D. Cebri´ an-Lacasa, L. Pi˜ neros, A. Vanderbeke, D. Ruiz- Reyn´ es, T. Wouters, A. B. Goryachev, N. Frolov, and L. Gelens, Spiral waves speed up cell cycle oscillations in the frog cytoplasm, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2412.16094

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Parra-Rivas, D

    P. Parra-Rivas, D. Ruiz-Reyn´ es, and L. Gelens, Cell cycle oscillations driven by two interlinked bistable switches, Molecular Biology of the Cell 34, 10.1091/mbc.E22-11-0527 (2023)

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    A. T. Winfree, The prehistory of the Belousov- Zhabotinsky oscillator, Journal of Chemical Education 61, 661 (1984)

    1984

  38. [46]

    Gyorgyi, T

    L. Gyorgyi, T. Tur´ anyi, and R. J. Field, Mechanistic details of the oscillatory belousov-zhabotinskii reaction, Journal of physical chemistry 94, 7162 (1990)

    1990

  39. [47]

    J. J. Tyson, The belousov-zhabotinskii reaction, Vol. 10 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    J. J. Tyson, Analytic representation of oscillations, ex- citability, and traveling waves in a realistic model of the Belousov–Zhabotinskii reaction, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 66, 905 (1977)

    1977

  41. [49]

    I. R. Epstein and J. A. Pojman, An introduction to non- linear chemical dynamics: oscillations, waves, patterns, and chaos (Oxford university press, 1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    R. J. Field and R. M. Noyes, Oscillations in chemical systems. iv. limit cycle behavior in a model of a real chemical reaction, The Journal of Chemical Physics 60, 1877 (1974)

    1974

  43. [51]

    J. J. Tyson, A quantitative account of oscillations, bista- bility and traveling waves in the belousov-zhabotinsky reaction, Oscillations and traveling waves in chemical systems , 93 (1985)

    1985

  44. [52]

    Alberts, J

    B. Alberts, J. H. Wilson, and T. Hunt, Molecular biology of the cell , 5th ed. (Garland Science, New York, 2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    R. W. King, R. J. Deshaies, J.-M. Peters, and M. W. Kirschner, How proteolysis drives the cell cycle, Science 20 274, 1652 (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    J. W. Newport and M. W. Kirschner, Regulation of the cell cycle during early xenopus development, Cell 37, 731 (1984)

    1984

  47. [55]

    J. R. Pomerening, S. Y. Kim, and J. E. Ferrell, Systems- level dissection of the cell-cycle oscillator: bypassing positive feedback produces damped oscillations, Cell 122, 565 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Yang and J

    Q. Yang and J. E. Ferrell Jr, The cdk1–apc/c cell cycle oscillator circuit functions as a time-delayed, ultrasen- sitive switch, Nature cell biology 15, 519 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    J. J. Tyson and B. Novak, Bistability, oscillations, and traveling waves in frog egg extracts, Bulletin of mathe- matical biology 77, 796 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    De Boeck, J

    J. De Boeck, J. Rombouts, and L. Gelens, A modu- lar approach for modeling the cell cycle based on func- tional response curves, PLoS computational biology 17, e1009008 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Rombouts and L

    J. Rombouts and L. Gelens, Dynamic bistable switches enhance robustness and accuracy of cell cycle transi- tions, PLoS computational biology 17, e1008231 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Mochida, S

    S. Mochida, S. Rata, H. Hino, T. Nagai, and B. Nov´ ak, Two Bistable Switches Govern M Phase Entry, Current Biology 26, 3361 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    S. Rata, M. F. Suarez Peredo Rodriguez, S. Joseph, N. Peter, F. Echegaray Iturra, F. Yang, A. Madzvamuse, J. G. Ruppert, K. Samejima, M. Platani, M. Alvarez- Fernandez, M. Malumbres, W. C. Earnshaw, B. Novak, and H. Hochegger, Two Interlinked Bistable Switches Govern Mitotic C...

    2018

  54. [62]

    Kamenz, L

    J. Kamenz, L. Gelens, and J. E. Ferrell, Bistable, Bipha- sic Regulation of PP2A-B55 Accounts for the Dynamics of Mitotic Substrate Phosphorylation, Current biology : CB 31, 794 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    J. J. Tyson, From the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction to biochemical clocks, traveling waves and cell cycle regu- lation, Biochemical Journal 479, 185 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Nov´ ak and J

    B. Nov´ ak and J. J. Tyson, Design principles of biochem- ical oscillators, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology 9, 981 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    J. J. Tyson and B. Novak, A dynamical paradigm for molecular cell biology, Trends in cell biology 30, 504 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Kitano, Systems biology: A brief overview, Science 295, 1662 (2002)

    H. Kitano, Systems biology: A brief overview, Science 295, 1662 (2002)

    2002

  59. [67]

    V. I. Arnold and K. Vogtmann, Mathematical methods of classical mechanics , Graduate texts in mathematics 60 (Springer, New York (N.Y.), 1978)

    1978

  60. [68]

    S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz, Data-driven science and engineering: Machine learning, dynamical systems, and control (Cambridge University Press, 2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Takens, Detecting strange attractors in turbulence, in Dynamical Systems and Turbulence, Warwick 1980 , edited by D

    F. Takens, Detecting strange attractors in turbulence, in Dynamical Systems and Turbulence, Warwick 1980 , edited by D. Rand and L.-S. Young (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981) pp. 366–381

    1980

  62. [70]

    H. D. Abarbanel, R. Brown, and J. B. Kadtke, Pre- diction in chaotic nonlinear systems: Methods for time series with broadband Fourier spectra, Physical Review A 41, 1782 (1990)

    1990

  63. [71]

    Casdagli, Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 35, 335 (1989)

    M. Casdagli, Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 35, 335 (1989)

    1989

  64. [72]

    G. M. Mindlin and R. Gilmore, Topological analysis and synthesis of chaotic time series, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 58, 229 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    Grassberger, T

    P. Grassberger, T. Schreiber, and C. Schaffrath, Non- linear time sequence analysis, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 01, 521 (2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    Ghadami and B

    A. Ghadami and B. I. Epureanu, Data-driven predic- tion in dynamical systems: recent developments, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 380, 1429 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    M. A. Bucci, O. Semeraro, A. Allauzen, S. Chibbaro, and L. Mathelin, Curriculum learning for data-driven modeling of dynamical systems, The European Physical Journal E 2023 46:3 46, 1 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    T. Hey, S. Tansley, K. Tolle, and J. Gray, The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery (Mi- crosoft Research, 2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    Fukushima, Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position, Biological Cybernetics 36, 193 (1980)

    K. Fukushima, Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position, Biological Cybernetics 36, 193 (1980)

    1980

  70. [78]

    D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, Receptive fields, binoc- ular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex, The Journal of Physiology 160, 106 (1962)

    1962

  71. [79]

    J. J. Hopfield, Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities., Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79, 2554 (1982)

    1982

  72. [80]

    D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines, Cognitive Science 9, 147 (1985)

    1985

  73. [81]

    Krizhevsky, I

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, Ima- geNet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works, Communications of the ACM 60, 84 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    Alber, A

    M. Alber, A. Buganza Tepole, W. R. Cannon, S. De, S. Dura-Bernal, K. Garikipati, G. Karniadakis, W. W. Lytton, P. Perdikaris, L. Petzold, and E. Kuhl, Integrating machine learning and multiscale model- ing—perspectives, challenges, and opportunities in the biological, biomedic...

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Trapnell, D

    C. Trapnell, D. Cacchiarelli, J. Grimsby, P. Pokharel, S. Li, M. Morse, N. J. Lennon, K. J. Livak, T. S. Mikkelsen, and J. L. Rinn, The dynamics and regula- tors of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotem- poral ordering of single cells, Nature Biotechnology 32, 381 (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Setty, M

    M. Setty, M. D. Tadmor, S. Reich-Zeliger, O. Angel, T. M. Salame, P. Kathail, K. Choi, S. Bendall, N. Fried- man, and D. Pe’er, Wishbone identifies bifurcating de- velopmental trajectories from single-cell data, Nature Biotechnology 34, 637 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Saelens, R

    W. Saelens, R. Cannoodt, H. Todorov, and Y. Saeys, A comparison of single-cell trajectory inference methods, Nature Biotechnology 37, 547 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Alpert, J

    A. Alpert, J. H. Moore, A. K. Shalek, K. W. Wucherpfennig, and N. Yosef, Alignment of single-cell trajectories to compare cellular expression dynamics, Nature Methods 19, 159 (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    Prokop and L

    B. Prokop and L. Gelens, Gitlab reposi- tory, https://gitlab.kuleuven.be/gelenslab/ publications/review-data-driven-methods.git (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    Kwiatkowska, G

    M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, and D. Parker, Using probabilistic model checking in systems biology, ACM 21 SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 35, 14 (2008)

    2008

  81. [89]

    Jianyong Sun, J. M. Garibaldi, and C. Hodgman, Pa- rameter Estimation Using Metaheuristics in Systems Bi- ology: A Comprehensive Review, IEEE/ACM Transac- tions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 9, 185 (2012)

    2012

  82. [90]

    L. C. Iacob, M. Schoukens, and R. T´ oth, Finite Dimensional Koopman Form of Polynomial Nonlin- ear Systems*, IF AC-PapersOnLine 56, 6423 (2023), arXiv:2301.06557

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    S. L. Brunton, M. Budiˇ si´ c, E. Kaiser, and J. N. Kutz, Modern Koopman Theory for Dynamical Sys- tems, SIAM Review 64, 229 (2022), arXiv:2102.12086

    2022 arXiv

  84. [92]

    B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian Systems and Transfor- mation in Hilbert Space, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 17, 315 (1931)

    1931

  85. [93]

    B. O. Koopman and J. v. Neumann, Dynamical Sys- tems of Continuous Spectra, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 18, 255 (1932)

    1932

  86. [94]

    Shiguihara, A

    P. Shiguihara, A. D. A. Lopes, and D. Mauricio, Dy- namic Bayesian Network Modeling, Learning, and In- ference: A Survey, IEEE Access 9, 117639 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    N. K. Kitson, A. C. Constantinou, Z. Guo, Y. Liu, and K. Chobtham, A survey of Bayesian Network structure learning, Artificial Intelligence Review 56, 8721 (2023), arXiv:2109.11415

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Newton, F

    I. Newton, F. Cajori, and A. Motte, Sir isaac new- ton’s mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his system of the world, translated by Andrew Motte (1729)

  89. [97]

    C. W. J. Granger, Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods, Econometrica 37, 424 (1969)

    1969

  90. [98]

    S. Chen, S. A. Billings, and W. Luo, Orthogonal least squares methods and their application to non-linear sys- tem identification, International Journal of Control 50, 1873 (1989)

    1989

  91. [99]

    Vapnik, S

    V. Vapnik, S. Golowich, and A. Smola, Support vector method for function approximation, regression estima- tion and signal processing, Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems 9 (1996)

    1996

  92. [100]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Pro- cesses for Machine Learning (The MIT Press, 2005)

    2005

  93. [101]

    Schmidt and H

    M. Schmidt and H. Lipson, Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Experimental Data, Science 324, 81 (2009)

    2009

  94. [102]

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Discover- ing governing equations from data by sparse identifica- tion of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3932 (2016)

    2016

  95. [103]

    S. M. Udrescu and M. Tegmark, AI Feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression, Sci- ence Advances 6, 10.1126/SCIADV.AAY2631 (2020), arXiv:1905.11481

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    S. H. Park, S. Ha, and J. K. Kim, A general model- based causal inference method overcomes the curse of synchrony and indirect effect, Nature Communications 14, 4287 (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    Minsky and S

    M. Minsky and S. Papert, Perceptrons. (M.I.T. Press, Oxford, England, 1969)

    1969

  98. [106]

    D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. MacClelland, and G. E. Hinton, General Framework for Parallel Distribution Processing, in Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations (MIT Press,

  99. [107]

    D. C. Plaut and G. E. Hinton, Learning sets of filters using back-propagation, Computer Speech & Language 2, 35 (1987)

    1987

  100. [108]

    echo state

    H. Jaeger, The “echo state” approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks-with an erratum note, Bonn, Germany: German national research center for information technology gmd technical report148, 13 (2001)

    2001

  101. [109]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, Auto-Encoding Varia- tional Bayes, 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014 - Conference Track Pro- ceedings 10.61603/ceas.v2i1.33 (2013), arXiv:1312.6114

    2014 arXiv

  102. [110]

    R. T. Q. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 31, edited by S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett (Curran Associate...

    2018

  103. [111]

    Raissi and G

    M. Raissi and G. E. Karniadakis, Hidden physics mod- els: Machine learning of nonlinear partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 357, 125 (2018), arXiv:1708.00588

    2018 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Prokop, J

    B. Prokop, J. Billen, N. Frolov, and L. Gelens, Ma- chine learning identifies nullclines in oscillatory dynam- ical systems, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2503.16240

    2025 arXiv

  105. [113]

    L. R. Tucker, Some Mathematical Notes on Three-Mode Factor Analysis, Psychometrika 31, 279 (1966)

    1966

  106. [114]

    D. D. Lee and H. S. Seung, Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization, Nature 401, 788 (1999)

    1999

  107. [115]

    P. J. Schmid, Dynamic mode decomposition of numeri- cal and experimental data, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 656, 5 (2010)

    2010

  108. [116]

    M. O. Williams, I. G. Kevrekidis, and C. W. Rowley, A Data–Driven Approximation of the Koopman Operator: Extending Dynamic Mode Decomposition, Journal of Nonlinear Science 25, 1307 (2015), arXiv:1408.4408

    2015 arXiv

  109. [117]

    S. L. Brunton, B. W. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, E. Kaiser, and J. N. Kutz, Chaos as an intermittently forced linear system, Nature Communications 8, 19 (2017), arXiv:1608.05306

    2017 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Rackauckas, Y

    C. Rackauckas, Y. Ma, J. Martensen, C. Warner, K. Zubov, R. Supekar, D. Skinner, A. Ramad- han, and A. Edelman, Universal Differential Equations for Scientific Machine Learning, ArXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2001.04385 (2020), arXiv:2001.04385

    2001 doi arXiv

  111. [119]

    M. D. Cranmer, R. Xu, P. Battaglia, and S. Ho, Learn- ing Symbolic Physics with Graph Networks, Preprint at ArXiv 10.48550/arXiv.1909.05862 (2019)

    1909 doi arXiv

  112. [120]

    Bakarji, K

    J. Bakarji, K. Champion, J. Nathan Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, Discovering governing equations from partial measurements with deep delay autoencoders, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 479, 10.1098/rspa.2023.0422 (2023), arXiv:2...

    2023

  113. [121]

    J. O. Wisdom, Causation and Modern Science, Nature 187, 92 (1960)

    1960

  114. [122]

    M. M. Saint-Antoine and A. Singh, Network inference in systems biology: recent developments, challenges, and applications, Current Opinion in Biotechnology 63, 89 (2020), arXiv:1911.04046

    2020 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Runge, S

    J. Runge, S. Bathiany, E. Bollt, G. Camps-Valls, D. Coumou, E. Deyle, C. Glymour, M. Kretschmer, 22 M. D. Mahecha, J. Mu˜ noz-Mar ´ ı, E. H. van Nes, J. Pe- ters, R. Quax, M. Reichstein, M. Scheffer, B. Sch¨ olkopf, P. Spirtes, G. Sugihara, J. Sun, K. Zhang, and J. Zscheischle...

    2019

  116. [124]

    Nawrath, M

    J. Nawrath, M. C. Romano, M. Thiel, I. Z. Kiss, M. Wickramasinghe, J. Timmer, J. Kurths, and B. Schelter, Distinguishing direct from indirect interac- tions in oscillatory networks with multiple time scales, Physical Review Letters 104, 038701 (2010)

    2010

  117. [125]

    S. Guo, A. K. Seth, K. M. Kendrick, C. Zhou, and J. Feng, Partial Granger causality-Eliminating exoge- nous inputs and latent variables, Journal of Neuro- science Methods 172, 79 (2008)

    2008

  118. [126]

    P. A. Stokes and P. L. Purdon, A study of prob- lems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114, E7063 (2017)

    2017

  119. [127]

    A. Rupe, D. DeSantis, C. Bakker, P. Kooloth, and J. Lu, Causal Discovery in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems using Koopman Operators, Arxiv (2024), arXiv:2410.10103

    2024

  120. [128]

    Di Antonio and G

    G. Di Antonio and G. V. Vinci, Non-linear correlations underlie linear response and causality, Arxiv (2024), arXiv:2410.08708v2

    2024 arXiv

  121. [129]

    S. A. Billings and K. Z. Mao, Structure detection for nonlinear rational models using genetic algorithms, In- ternational Journal of Systems Science 29, 223 (1998)

    1998

  122. [130]

    S. Chen, S. A. Billings, C. F. Cowan, and P. M. Grant, Practical identification of narmax models using radial basis functions, International Journal of Control 52, 1327 (1990)

    1990

  123. [131]

    X. Hong, R. J. Mitchell, S. Chen, C. J. Harris, K. Li, and G. W. Irwin, Model selection approaches for non-linear system identification: A review, International Journal of Systems Science 39, 925 (2008)

    2008

  124. [132]

    S. L. Kukreja, H. L. Galiana, and R. E. Kearney, NAR- MAX representation and identification of ankle dynam- ics, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 50, 70 (2003)

    2003

  125. [133]

    Khodadadi, F

    V. Khodadadi, F. N. Rahatabad, A. Sheikhani, and N. J. Dabanloo, Prediction of Biceps Muscle Elec- tromyogram Signal Using a NARX Neural Network, Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors 13, 29 (2023)

    2023

  126. [134]

    Mendes and D

    P. Mendes and D. B. Kell, Non-linear optimization of biochemical pathways: Applications to metabolic engi- neering and parameter estimation, Bioinformatics 14, 869 (1998)

    1998

  127. [135]

    Krishnanathan, S

    K. Krishnanathan, S. R. Anderson, S. A. Billings, and V. Kadirkamanathan, A data-Driven framework for identifying nonlinear dynamic models of genetic parts, ACS Synthetic Biology 1, 375 (2012)

    2012

  128. [136]

    S. M. Hirsh, D. A. Barajas-Solano, and J. N. Kutz, Sparsifying priors for Bayesian uncertainty quantifica- tion in model discovery, Royal Society Open Science 9, 10.1098/rsos.211823 (2022)

    2022 doi

  129. [137]

    Fasel, J

    U. Fasel, J. N. Kutz, B. W. Brunton, and S. L. Brun- ton, Ensemble-SINDy: Robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learn- ing and control, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 478, 10.1098/rspa....

    2021

  130. [138]

    Sandoz, V

    A. Sandoz, V. Ducret, G. A. Gottwald, G. Vilmart, and K. Perron, SINDy for delay-differential equations: ap- plication to model bacterial zinc response, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 479, 10.1098/RSPA.2022.0556 (2023), arXiv:2208.10826

    2022

  131. [139]

    dos Anjos, G

    L. dos Anjos, G. T. Naozuka, D. T. Volpatto, W. A. C. Godoy, M. I. d. S. Costa, and R. C. Almeida, A new modelling framework for predator-prey interactions: A case study of an aphid-ladybeetle system, Ecological In- formatics 77, 102168 (2023)

    2023

  132. [140]

    Gutierrez-Vilchis, Y

    A. Gutierrez-Vilchis, Y. Perfecto-Avalos, and A. Garcia- Gonzalez, Modeling bacteria pairwise interactions in hu- man microbiota by Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics (SINDy), Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEE...

    2023

  133. [141]

    Messenger, G

    D. Messenger, G. Dwyer, and V. Dukic, Weak- form inference for hybrid dynamical systems in ecol- ogy, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 21, 10.1098/RSIF.2024.0376 (2024)

    2024

  134. [142]

    N. M. Mangan, S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Inferring Biological Networks by Sparse Identi- fication of Nonlinear Dynamics, IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological and Multi-Scale Communications 2, 52 (2016), 1605.08368

    2016 arXiv

  135. [143]

    D. A. Messenger, G. E. Wheeler, X. Liu, and D. M. Bortz, Learning anisotropic interaction rules from in- dividual trajectories in a heterogeneous cellular pop- ulation, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 19, 10.1098/RSIF.2022.0412 (2022), arXiv:2204.14141

    2022

  136. [144]

    A. B. Brummer, A. Xella, R. Woodall, V. Adhikarla, H. Cho, M. Gutova, C. E. Brown, and R. C. Rockne, Data driven model discovery and interpretation for CAR T-cell killing using sparse identification and latent variables, Frontiers in Immunology 14, 1115536 (2023)

    2023

  137. [145]

    G. T. Naozuka, H. L. Rocha, T. J. Pereira, G. B. Libotte, and R. C. Almeida, Connecting different ap- proaches for cell cycle modeling: learning ordinary dif- ferential equations from individual-based models, IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinfor- matics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  138. [146]

    C. B. Delahunt and J. N. Kutz, A Toolkit for Data-Driven Discovery of Governing Equations in High-Noise Regimes, IEEE Access 10, 31210 (2022), arXiv:2111.04870

    2022 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Cortiella, K

    A. Cortiella, K. C. Park, and A. Doostan, A Priori De- noising Strategies for Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: A Comparative Study, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 23, 1 (2022), arXiv:2201.12683

    2022 arXiv

  140. [148]

    Prokop and L

    B. Prokop and L. Gelens, From biological data to oscil- lator models using SINDy, iScience 27, 109316 (2024)

    2024

  141. [149]

    D. A. Messenger and D. M. Bortz, Weak SINDy: Galerkin-Based Data-Driven Model Selection, Mul- tiscale Modeling & Simulation 19, 1474 (2021), arXiv:2005.04339

    2021 arXiv

  142. [150]

    A. E. Eiben and J. E. Smith, Introduction to evolution- ary computing (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  143. [151]

    Beauregard, M

    N. Beauregard, M. Marten, S. Harris, and R. Srivastava, Enhanced symbolic regression to infer biochemical net- work models, Biochemical and Molecular Engineering XXI (2019). 23

    2019

  144. [152]

    Zhang and H

    L. Zhang and H. Schaeffer, On the Convergence of the SINDy Algorithm, Multiscale Modeling and Simulation 17, 948 (2019)

    2019

  145. [153]

    Y. Chen, M. T. Angulo, and Y. Y. Liu, Revealing Complex Ecological Dynamics via Symbolic Regression, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology 41, e1900069 (2019)

    2019

  146. [154]

    Haldar, C

    S. Haldar, C. Stein-Thoeringer, and V. Borisov, Inter- preting Microbiome Relative Abundance Data Using Symbolic Regression, Arxiv (2024), arXiv:2410.16109

    2024 arXiv

  147. [155]

    J. Hou, X. Chen, T. Wu, E. Kuhl, and X. Wang, Automated Data-Driven Discovery of Material Models Based on Symbolic Regression: A Case Study on Hu- man Brain Cortex, Acta Biomaterialia 188, 276 (2024), arXiv:2402.05238v1

    2024 arXiv

  148. [156]

    J. A. Suykens, Nonlinear modelling and support vector machines, in IMTC 2001. proceedings of the 18th IEEE instrumentation and measurement technology confer- ence. Rediscovering measurement in the age of infor- matics (Cat. No. 01CH 37188) , Vol. 1 (IEEE, 2001) pp. 287–294

    2001

  149. [157]

    Suthaharan, Support vector machine, in Machine learning models and algorithms for big data classifi- cation: thinking with examples for effective learning (Springer, 2016) pp

    S. Suthaharan, Support vector machine, in Machine learning models and algorithms for big data classifi- cation: thinking with examples for effective learning (Springer, 2016) pp. 207–235

    2016

  150. [158]

    S. Chen, X. Hong, and C. Harris, Sparse Kernel Den- sity Construction Using Orthogonal Forward Regression With Leave-One-Out Test Score and Local Regulariza- tion, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cyber- netics, Part B (Cybernetics) 34, 1708 (2004)

    2004

  151. [159]

    Gilpin, Y

    W. Gilpin, Y. Huang, and D. B. Forger, Learning dy- namics from large biological data sets: Machine learning meets systems biology, Current Opinion in Systems Bi- ology 22, 1 (2020)

    2020

  152. [160]

    Ben-Hur, C

    A. Ben-Hur, C. S. Ong, S. Sonnenburg, B. Sch¨ olkopf, and G. R¨ atsch, Support Vector Machines and Kernels for Computational Biology, PLoS Computational Biol- ogy 4, e1000173 (2008)

    2008

  153. [161]

    Gillani, M

    Z. Gillani, M. S. H. Akash, M. D. M. Rahaman, and M. Chen, CompareSVM: supervised, Support Vector Machine (SVM) inference of gene regularity networks., BMC bioinformatics 15, 395 (2014)

    2014

  154. [162]

    J.-P. Vert, J. Qiu, and W. S. Noble, A new pairwise ker- nel for biological network inference with support vector machines, BMC Bioinformatics 8, S8 (2007)

    2007

  155. [163]

    P. Gao, A. Honkela, M. Rattray, and N. D. Lawrence, Gaussian process modelling of latent chemical species: applications to inferring transcription factor activities, Bioinformatics 24, i70 (2008)

    2008

  156. [164]

    Kristjanson Duvenaud, Automatic model construc- tion with Gaussian processes , Ph.D

    D. Kristjanson Duvenaud, Automatic model construc- tion with Gaussian processes , Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Pembroke College (2014)

    2014

  157. [165]

    Frigola, Y

    R. Frigola, Y. Chen, and C. E. Rasmussen, Variational gaussian process state-space models, Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  158. [166]

    Hornik, M

    K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White, Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators, Neu- ral Networks 2, 359 (1989)

    1989

  159. [167]

    K. S. Narendra and K. Parthasarathy, Neural networks and dynamical systems, International Journal of Ap- proximate Reasoning 6, 109 (1992)

    1992

  160. [168]

    J. A. K. Suykens, J. P. L. Vandewalle, and B. L. R. De Moor, Artificial Neural Networks for Modelling and Control of Non-Linear Systems, Artificial Neural Net- works for Modelling and Control of Non-Linear Systems 10.1007/978-1-4757-2493-6 (1996)

    1996 doi

  161. [169]

    I. W. Sandberg, J. T. Lo, C. L. Fancourt, J. C. Principe, S. Katagiri, and S. Haykin, Nonlinear dynamical sys- tems: feedforward neural network perspectives (John Wiley & Sons, 2001)

    2001

  162. [170]

    Chattopadhyay, A

    A. Chattopadhyay, A. Subel, and P. Hassanzadeh, Data- Driven Super-Parameterization Using Deep Learning: Experimentation With Multiscale Lorenz 96 Systems and Transfer Learning, Journal of Advances in Model- ing Earth Systems 12, 10.1029/2020MS002084 (2020), arXiv:2002.11167

    2020 arXiv

  163. [171]

    Nagarajan and J

    R. Nagarajan and J. N. Jonkman, A Neural Network Model to Translate Brain Developmental Events across Mammalian Species, PLoS ONE 8, 10.1371/JOUR- NAL.PONE.0053225, (2013)

    2013 doi

  164. [172]

    S. M. Choo, L. M. Almomani, and K. H. Cho, Boolean Feedforward Neural Network Modeling of Molecular Regulatory Networks for Cellular State Conversion, Frontiers in Physiology 11, 594151 (2020)

    2020

  165. [173]

    Chen and C

    F. Chen and C. Li, Inferring structural and dynami- cal properties of gene networks from data with deep learning, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 4, lqac068 (2022)

    2022

  166. [174]

    Nilsson, J

    A. Nilsson, J. M. Peters, N. Meimetis, B. Bryson, and D. A. Lauffenburger, Artificial neural networks enable genome-scale simulations of intracellular signaling, Na- ture Communications 13, 3069 (2022)

    2022

  167. [175]

    W. Wang, P. H. A. J. M. Van Gelder, and J. K. Vri- jling, Some Issues About the Generalization of Neural Networks for Time Series Prediction, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinfor- matic...

  168. [176]

    Pan and K

    S. Pan and K. Duraisamy, Long-Time Predictive Mod- eling of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Using Neu- ral Networks, Complexity 2018, 4801012 (2018), arXiv:1805.12547

    2018 arXiv

  169. [177]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Bengio, M. Hardt, B. Recht, and O. Vinyals, Understanding deep learning (still) requires rethinking generalization, Communications of the ACM 64, 107 (2021), arXiv:1611.03530

    2021 arXiv

  170. [178]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. Karniadakis, Physics- informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving non- linear partial differential equations, Journal of Compu- tational Physics 378, 686 (2019)

    2019

  171. [179]

    Yazdani, L

    A. Yazdani, L. Lu, M. Raissi, and G. E. Karniadakis, Systems biology informed deep learning for inferring pa- rameters and hidden dynamics, PLOS Computational Biology 16, e1007575 (2020)

    2020

  172. [180]

    J. H. Lagergren, J. T. Nardini, R. E. Baker, M. J. Simpson, and K. B. Flores, Biologically-informed neu- ral networks guide mechanistic modeling from sparse experimental data, PLOS Computational Biology 16, e1008462 (2020)

    2020

  173. [181]

    Pathak, Z

    J. Pathak, Z. Lu, B. R. Hunt, M. Girvan, and E. Ott, Using machine learning to replicate chaotic attractors and calculate Lyapunov exponents from data, Chaos27, 121102 (2017), arXiv:1710.07313

    2017 arXiv

  174. [182]

    Cestnik and M

    R. Cestnik and M. Abel, Inferring the dynamics of oscil- latory systems using recurrent neural networks, Chaos 29, 63128 (2019), arXiv:1904.03026. 24

    2019 arXiv

  175. [183]

    P. R. Vlachas, W. Byeon, Z. Y. Wan, T. P. Sap- sis, and P. Koumoutsakos, Data-driven forecasting of high-dimensional chaotic systems with long short-Term memory networks, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 474, 10.1098/RSPA.2017...

    2017

  176. [184]

    X. Jia, J. Willard, A. Karpatne, J. Read, J. Zwart, M. Steinbach, and V. Kumar, Physics guided RNNs for modeling dynamical systems: A case study in sim- ulating lake temperature profiles, SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, SDM 2019 , 558 (2019), arXiv:1810.13075

    2019 arXiv

  177. [185]

    Samarasinghe and H

    S. Samarasinghe and H. Ling, A system of recurrent neural networks for modularising, parameterising and dynamic analysis of cell signalling networks, BioSystems 153-154, 6 (2017)

    2017

  178. [186]

    Baranwal, R

    M. Baranwal, R. L. Clark, J. Thompson, Z. Sun, A. O. Hero, and O. S. Venturelli, Recurrent neural networks enable design of multifunctional synthetic human gut microbiome dynamics, eLife 11, 10.7554/ELIFE.73870 (2022)

    2022 doi

  179. [187]

    M. S. Vidal-Saez, O. Vilarroya, and J. Garcia-Ojalvo, Biological computation through recurrence, Biochem- ical and Biophysical Research Communications 728, 150301 (2024), arXiv:2402.05243

    2024 arXiv

  180. [188]

    M. S. Vidal-Saez and J. Garcia-Ojalvo, Structural deter- minants of soft memory in recurrent biological networks, Biophysical Reviews 17, 259 (2025)

    2025

  181. [189]

    Tanaka, T

    G. Tanaka, T. Yamane, J. B. H´ eroux, R. Nakane, N. Kanazawa, S. Takeda, H. Numata, D. Nakano, and A. Hirose, Recent advances in physical reservoir com- puting: A review, Neural Networks 115, 100 (2019), arXiv:1808.04962

    2019 arXiv

  182. [190]

    D. J. Gauthier, E. Bollt, A. Griffith, and W. A. Barbosa, Next generation reservoir computing, Nature Commu- nications 12, 1 (2021), arXiv:2106.07688

    2021 arXiv

  183. [191]

    Bourlard and Y

    H. Bourlard and Y. Kamp, Auto-association by mul- tilayer perceptrons and singular value decomposition, Biological Cybernetics 59, 291 (1988)

    1988

  184. [192]

    G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y. W. Teh, A Fast Learn- ing Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets, Neural Computa- tion 18, 1527 (2006)

    2006

  185. [193]

    S. E. Otto and C. W. Rowley, Linearly recurrent au- toencoder networks for learning dynamics, SIAM Jour- nal on Applied Dynamical Systems 18, 558 (2019), arXiv:1712.01378

    2019 arXiv

  186. [194]

    Sondak and P

    D. Sondak and P. Protopapas, Learning a reduced basis of dynamical systems using an autoencoder, Physical Review E 104, 034202 (2021), arXiv:2011.07346

    2021 arXiv

  187. [195]

    R. J. Maizels, D. M. Snell, and J. Briscoe, Reconstruct- ing developmental trajectories using latent dynamical systems and time-resolved transcriptomics, Cell Sys- tems 15, 411 (2024)

    2024

  188. [196]

    Y. Baig, H. R. Ma, H. Xu, and L. You, Autoencoder neural networks enable low dimensional structure anal- yses of microbial growth dynamics, Nature Communi- cations 14, 1 (2023)

    2023

  189. [197]

    Wehmeyer and F

    C. Wehmeyer and F. No´ e, Time-lagged autoencoders: Deep learning of slow collective variables for molecu- lar kinetics, Journal of Chemical Physics 148, 241703 (2018), arXiv:1710.11239

    2018 arXiv

  190. [198]

    S. Liu, Y. You, Z. Tong, and L. Zhang, Devel- oping an Embedding, Koopman and Autoencoder Technologies-Based Multi-Omics Time Series Predictive Model (EKATP) for Systems Biology research, Frontiers in Genetics 12, 761629 (2021)

    2021

  191. [199]

    Asperti, D

    A. Asperti, D. Evangelista, and E. L. Piccolomini, A survey on variational autoencoders from a green ai per- spective, SN Computer Science 2, 301 (2021)

    2021

  192. [200]

    Shrivastava, R

    A. Shrivastava, R. Rameshan, and S. Agnihotri, Latent space characterization of autoencoder variants, Arxiv 10.5220/0013123700003912 (2025)

    2025 doi

  193. [201]

    Lopez and P

    R. Lopez and P. J. Atzberger, Variational Autoen- coders for Learning Nonlinear Dynamics of Physical Systems, CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2964 (2020), arXiv:2012.03448

    2020 arXiv

  194. [202]

    K. Zeng, C. E. De Jes´ us, A. J. Fox, and M. D. Gra- ham, Autoencoders for discovering manifold dimension and coordinates in data from complex dynamical sys- tems, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5, 10.1088/2632-2153/ad4ba5 (2023), arXiv:2305.01090

    2023 arXiv

  195. [203]

    Sanchez-Gonzalez, N

    A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, N. Heess, J. T. Springenberg, J. Merel, M. Riedmiller, R. Hadsell, and P. Battaglia, Graph networks as learnable physics engines for infer- ence and control, in International conference on ma- chine learning (PMLR, 2018) pp. 4470–4479

    2018

  196. [204]

    M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, and P. Veliˇ ckovi´ c, Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13478 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  197. [205]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  198. [206]

    Zhang, R

    S. Zhang, R. Fan, Y. Liu, S. Chen, Q. Liu, and W. Zeng, Applications of transformer-based language models in bioinformatics: a survey, Bioinformatics Advances 3, vbad001 (2023)

    2023

  199. [207]

    Berkooz, P

    G. Berkooz, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley, The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbu- lent flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 25, 539 (1993)

    1993

  200. [208]

    C. W. Rowley, I. Mezi, S. Bagheri, P. Schlatter, and D. S. Henningson, Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 641, 115 (2009)

    2009

  201. [209]

    J. H. Tu, C. W. Rowley, D. M. Luchtenburg, S. L. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, J. H. Tu, C. W. Rowley, D. M. Luchtenburg, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, On dy- namic mode decomposition: Theory and applications, Journal of Computational Dynamics 1, 391 (2014), arXiv:1312.0041

    2014 arXiv

  202. [210]

    B. W. Brunton, L. A. Johnson, J. G. Ojemann, and J. N. Kutz, Extracting spatial–temporal coherent patterns in large-scale neural recordings using dynamic mode de- composition, Journal of Neuroscience Methods 258, 1 (2016), arXiv:1409.5496

    2016 arXiv

  203. [211]

    Karabiber Cura and A

    O. Karabiber Cura and A. Akan, Analysis of epileptic EEG signals by using dynamic mode decomposition and spectrum, Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering 41, 28 (2021)

    2021

  204. [212]

    Balakrishnan, A

    S. Balakrishnan, A. Hasnain, N. Boddupalli, D. M. Joshy, R. G. Egbert, and E. Yeung, Prediction of fitness in bacteria with causal jump dynamic mode decompo- sition, Proceedings of the American Control Conference 2020-July, 3749 (2020), arXiv:2006.12726

    2020 arXiv

  205. [213]

    Skantze, M

    V. Skantze, M. Jirstrand, C. Brunius, A. S. Sandberg, R. Landberg, and M. Wallman, Data-driven analysis and prediction of dynamic postprandial metabolic re- 25 sponse to multiple dietary challenges using dynamic mode decomposition, Frontiers in Nutrition10, 1304540 (2023)

    2023

  206. [214]

    Habibi, S

    M. Habibi, S. T. M. Dawson, and A. Arzani, Data- Driven Pulsatile Blood Flow Physics with Dynamic Mode Decomposition, Fluids 5, 111 (2020)

    2020

  207. [215]

    G. C. Bourantas, M. Ghommem, G. C. Kagadis, K. Kat- sanos, V. C. Loukopoulos, V. N. Burganos, and G. C. Nikiforidis, Real-time tumor ablation simulation based on the dynamic mode decomposition method, Medical Physics 41, 053301 (2014)

    2014

  208. [216]

    K. K. Chen, J. H. Tu, and C. W. Rowley, Variants of dynamic mode decomposition: Boundary condition, Koopman, and fourier analyses, Journal of Nonlinear Science 22, 887 (2012)

    2012

  209. [217]

    M. S. Hemati, C. W. Rowley, E. A. Deem, and L. N. Cattafesta, De-biasing the dynamic mode decomposi- tion for applied Koopman spectral analysis of noisy datasets, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynam- ics 31, 349 (2017)

    2017

  210. [218]

    Devarajan, Nonnegative matrix factorization: an an- alytical and interpretive tool in computational biology, PLoS computational biology 4, e1000029 (2008)

    K. Devarajan, Nonnegative matrix factorization: an an- alytical and interpretive tool in computational biology, PLoS computational biology 4, e1000029 (2008)

    2008

  211. [219]

    G. L. Stein-O’Brien, R. Arora, A. C. Culhane, A. V. Favorov, L. X. Garmire, C. S. Greene, L. A. Goff, Y. Li, A. Ngom, M. F. Ochs, et al. , Enter the matrix: factor- ization uncovers knowledge from omics, Trends in Ge- netics 34, 790 (2018)

    2018

  212. [220]

    T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, Tensor decompositions and applications, SIAM review 51, 455 (2009)

    2009

  213. [221]

    K. P. Champion, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, Discov- ery of Nonlinear Multiscale Systems: Sampling Strate- gies and Embeddings, SIAM Journal on Applied Dy- namical Systems 18, 312 (2019)

    2019

  214. [222]

    E. Tan, S. Algar, D. Corrˆ ea, M. Small, T. Stemler, and D. Walker, Selecting embedding delays: An overview of embedding techniques and a new method using persis- tent homology, Chaos 33, 53 (2023), arXiv:2302.03447

    2023 arXiv

  215. [223]

    Balasubramanian, C

    H. Balasubramanian, C. M. Hobson, T.-L. Chew, and J. S. Aaron, Imagining the future of optical microscopy: everything, everywhere, all at once, Communications Biology 6, 1096 (2023)

    2023

  216. [224]

    S. M. Hickey, B. Ung, C. Bader, R. Brooks, J. Lazniewska, I. R. Johnson, A. Sorvina, J. Lo- gan, C. Martini, C. R. Moore, L. Karageor- gos, M. J. Sweetman, and D. A. Brooks, Fluores- cence microscopy—an outline of hardware, biological handling, and fluorophore considerations, ...

    2022 doi

  217. [225]

    E. A. Specht, E. Braselmann, and A. E. Palmer, A Crit- ical and Comparative Review of Fluorescent Tools for Live-Cell Imaging, Annual Review of Physiology 79, 93 (2017)

    2017

  218. [226]

    Bressan, G

    D. Bressan, G. Battistoni, and G. J. Hannon, The dawn of spatial omics, Science 381, 10.1126/SCI- ENCE.ABQ4964 (2023)

    2023 doi

  219. [227]

    Velten and O

    B. Velten and O. Stegle, Principles and challenges of modeling temporal and spatial omics data, Nature Methods 20, 1462 (2023)

    2023

  220. [228]

    L. F. Jansen Klomp, X. Yan, R. R. Snabel, G. J. C. Veenstra, H. G. Meijer, and J. N. Post, Danse: a pipeline for dynamic modelling of time-series multi- omics data, bioRxiv , 2025 (2025)

    2025

  221. [229]

    B. C. Buddingh’ and J. C. Van Hest, Artificial Cells: Synthetic Compartments with Life-like Functionality and Adaptivity, Accounts of Chemical Research50, 769 (2017)

    2017

  222. [230]

    Jiang, Z

    W. Jiang, Z. Wu, Z. Gao, M. Wan, M. Zhou, C. Mao, and J. Shen, Artificial Cells: Past, Present and Future, ACS Nano 16, 15705 (2022)

    2022

  223. [231]

    La Manno, R

    G. La Manno, R. Soldatov, A. Zeisel, E. Braun, H. Hochgerner, V. Petukhov, M. Lidschreiber, M. E. Kastriti, P. L¨ onnerberg, A. Furlan, J. Fan, L. E. Borm, Z. Liu, D. van Bruggen, J. Guo, X. He, R. Barker, E. Sundstr¨ om, G. Castelo-Branco, P. Cramer, I. Adameyko, S. Linnarsso...

    2018

  224. [232]

    Schiebinger, J

    G. Schiebinger, J. Shu, M. Tabaka, B. Cleary, V. Sub- ramanian, A. Solomon, J. Gould, S. Liu, S. Lin, P. Berube, L. Lee, J. Chen, J. Brumbaugh, P. Rigollet, K. Hochedlinger, R. Jaenisch, and A. Regev, Optimal- transport analysis of single-cell gene expression identi- fies deve...

    2019

  225. [233]

    Lusch, J

    B. Lusch, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics, Nature Communications 9, 1 (2018), arXiv:1712.09707

    2018 arXiv

  226. [234]

    Iwata and Y

    T. Iwata and Y. Kawahara, Neural Dynamic Mode De- composition for End-to-End Modeling of Nonlinear Dy- namics, Journal of Computational Dynamics 10, 268 (2020), arXiv:2012.06191

    2020 arXiv

  227. [235]

    B. Yuan, C. Shen, A. Luna, A. Korkut, D. S. Marks, J. Ingraham, and C. Sander, CellBox: Interpretable Ma- chine Learning for Perturbation Biology with Applica- tion to the Design of Cancer Combination Therapy, Cell Systems 12, 128 (2021)

    2021

  228. [236]

    Philipps, N

    M. Philipps, N. Schmid, and J. Hasenauer, Universal differential equations for systems biology: Current state and open problems, bioRxiv , 2024.11.29.626122 (2024)

    2024

  229. [237]

    Kana and S

    O. Kana and S. Bhattacharya, Single Cell Universal Dif- ferential Equations: A Machine Learning Framework for Extracting Ordinary Differential Equations for Gene Regulatory Network Inference, The F ASEB Journal35, 10.1096/F ASEBJ.2021.35.S1.03839 (2021)

    2021 doi

  230. [238]

    Rojas-Campos, L

    A. Rojas-Campos, L. Stelz, and P. Nieters, Learning COVID-19 Regional Transmission Using Universal Dif- ferential Equations in a SIR model, Arxiv (2023), arXiv:2310.16804

    2023 arXiv

  231. [239]

    Kuwahara and C

    B. Kuwahara and C. T. Bauch, Predicting Covid- 19 pandemic waves with biologically and behaviorally informed universal differential equations, Heliyon 10, e25363 (2024)

    2024

  232. [240]

    J. H. Buckner, Z. D. Meunier, J. Arroyo-Esquivel, N. Fitzpatrick, A. Greiner, L. C. McManus, and J. R. Watson, Recovering complex ecological dynamics from time series using state-space universal dynamic equa- tions, Arxiv (2024), arXiv:2410.09233

    2024 arXiv

  233. [241]

    Cranmer, A

    M. Cranmer, A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, P. Battaglia, R. Xu, K. Cranmer, D. Spergel, and S. Ho, Discovering Sym- bolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases, Preprint at ArXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2006.11287 (2020), arXiv:2006.11287

    2006 doi arXiv

  234. [242]

    Boddupalli, T

    N. Boddupalli, T. Matchen, and J. Moehlis, Sym- bolic regression via neural networks., Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.) 33, 10.1063/5.0134464 (2023). 26

    2023 doi

  235. [243]

    Ahmadi Daryakenari, M

    N. Ahmadi Daryakenari, M. De Florio, K. Shukla, and G. E. Karniadakis, AI-Aristotle: A physics-informed framework for systems biology gray-box identification, PLOS Computational Biology 20, e1011916 (2024), arXiv:2310.01433

    2024 arXiv

  236. [244]

    Bakarji, J

    J. Bakarji, J. Callaham, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, Dimensionally Consistent Learning with Bucking- ham Pi, Nature Computational Science 2, 834 (2022), arXiv:2202.04643

    2022 arXiv

  237. [245]

    Voina, S

    D. Voina, S. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, Deep Generative Modeling for Identification of Noisy, Non-Stationary Dynamical Systems, Arxiv (2024), arXiv:2410.02079

    2024 arXiv

  238. [246]

    B. Xu, Z. E. Ho, and Y. Huang, Time-series modeling with neural flow maps, bioRxiv , 2025 (2025)

    2025

  239. [247]

    D. J. Cislo, M. J. Del´ as, J. Briscoe, and E. D. Sig- gia, Reconstructing waddington’s landscape from data, bioRxiv , 2025 (2025)

    2025

  240. [248]

    Fontaine, M

    M. Fontaine, M. J. Delas, M. Saez, R. J. Maizels, E. Finnie, J. Briscoe, and D. A. Rand, Dynamic land- scape analysis of cell fate decisions: Predictive models of neural development from single-cell data, bioRxiv , 2025 (2025)

    2025

  241. [249]

    Gunawardena, Models in biology: ‘accurate descrip- tions of our pathetic thinking’, BMC Biology 12, 29 (2014)

    J. Gunawardena, Models in biology: ‘accurate descrip- tions of our pathetic thinking’, BMC Biology 12, 29 (2014)

    2014

  242. [250]

    E. K. Paluch, After the Greeting: Realizing the Poten- tial of Physical Models in Cell Biology, Trends in Cell Biology 25, 711 (2015)

    2015

  243. [251]

    R. E. Goldstein, Are theoretical results ‘Results’ ?, eLife 7, 10.7554/eLife.40018 (2018), arXiv:1807.11336

    2018 arXiv

  244. [252]

    Phillips, Theory in Biology: Figure 1 or Figure 7?, Trends in Cell Biology 25, 723 (2015)

    R. Phillips, Theory in Biology: Figure 1 or Figure 7?, Trends in Cell Biology 25, 723 (2015)

    2015

  245. [253]

    Mogilner, R

    A. Mogilner, R. Wollman, and W. F. Marshall, Quanti- tative Modeling in Cell Biology: What Is It Good for?, Developmental Cell 11, 279 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.