arxiv: 2605.01067 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 💻 cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Deep Variational Inference Symbolic Regression

James Butterworth , Gevik Grigorian , Alejandro DiazDelaO

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG

keywords symbolic regressionvariational inferenceBayesian inferencedeep learningexpression treesposterior distributionuncertainty quantificationneural networks

0 comments

The pith

DVISR recovers the true posterior over symbolic expressions and constants by optimizing the ELBO integrand as a reward in a neural network.

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

The paper presents Deep Variational Inference Symbolic Regression as an extension of deep symbolic regression that performs variational Bayesian inference rather than identifying a single best expression. It replaces the original reward function with the integrand of the evidence lower bound and augments the network to output distributions over numerical constants inside the generated expressions. This produces samples from a distribution over full symbolic models, enabling uncertainty quantification when data are noisy or limited. The authors demonstrate exact posterior recovery in simple cases both with and without constant tokens and track how results change as the space of possible expressions grows larger.

Core claim

DVISR recovers the true posterior in simple settings by training a neural network whose outputs define a variational distribution over expression trees and associated constants, with the evidence lower bound integrand substituted for the original reward signal.

What carries the argument

Neural network that parameterizes a variational posterior over discrete expression trees and continuous constants, optimized by using the ELBO integrand directly as the reward.

If this is right

Uncertainty can be quantified over entire symbolic models instead of point estimates of a single expression.
Posterior inference applies jointly to both the structure of the expression tree and the numerical constants it contains.
The quality of posterior approximation can be examined as the size of the expression space is increased.
The method supplies a concrete route toward Bayesian symbolic regression that remains tractable at moderate scales.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

On problems small enough for exhaustive enumeration, direct comparison of DVISR samples to the true posterior would give a quantitative test of approximation fidelity.
The same reward-replacement approach might be applied to other discrete search spaces in machine learning where posterior inference is desired.
Extending the constant-distribution output to more flexible families such as mixtures could reduce bias when constants have multimodal posteriors.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network can represent the variational posterior over discrete trees and continuous constants accurately enough that optimizing the ELBO integrand yields samples from the true posterior.

What would settle it

Exact enumeration of the posterior on a small expression space and data set, followed by direct comparison of the sampled distribution from DVISR to the enumerated distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01067 by Alejandro DiazDelaO, Gevik Grigorian, James Butterworth.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: A: An example of the sampling procedure of DVISR. The previous, parent, sibling and respective constant value tokens of the about to be sampled token are provided as input to the RNN. The RNN outputs parameters of both a categorical distribution over tokens and a normal distribution over constants. The respective token and constant are sampled and are included in the expression (C). The constant value is o… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The median and IQR of the ELBO (Eq. 6) values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Estimated KL divergence between the true poste [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The median and IQR values of the ELBO (Eq. 6) over 10 runs for the simple no constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The median and IQR values of the ELBO (Eq. 6) over 10 runs for the simple no constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The median and the IQR values of the KL divergence over 10 runs for the simple no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The median and the IQR values of the KL divergence over 10 runs for the simple no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The median and the IQR values of the KL divergence over 10 runs for the simple no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The median and IQR values of the ELBO (Eq. 6) over 10 runs for the simple constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The median and IQR values of the ELBO (Eq. 6) over 10 runs for the simple constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The median and IQR values of the ELBO (Eq. 6) over 10 runs for the simple constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The median and the IQR values of the KL divergence over 10 runs for the simple constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The median and the IQR values of the KL divergence over 10 runs for the simple constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: The median and the IQR values of the KL divergence over 10 runs for the simple constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Symbolic regression discovers explicit, interpretable equations without assuming a functional form in advance. A Bayesian approach strengthens this through probability distributions over candidate expressions, thus quantifying uncertainty in the presence of noisy and limited data. Deep Symbolic Regression (DSR) uses a neural network to generate symbolic expressions, but it is designed to identify a single best-fitting expression rather than infer a posterior distribution over models. We introduce Deep Variational Inference Symbolic Regression (DVISR), a variational Bayesian extension of DSR. DVISR replaces the original reward with the integrand of the evidence lower bound. It also extends the network architecture to output distributions over constants within expressions, enabling posterior inference over both expression trees and their associated constants. We show that DVISR can recover the true posterior in simple settings, both with and without constant tokens, and we examine how its performance changes as the size of the expression space increases. These results position DVISR as a step toward scalable Bayesian symbolic regression with uncertainty over full symbolic models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

DVISR is a direct variational extension of DSR that recovers the true posterior in small enumerable cases but rests on thin experimental detail so far.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper turns Deep Symbolic Regression into a variational method by replacing the reward with the ELBO integrand and adding network outputs for distributions over constants. That produces samples from an approximate posterior over both expression trees and their parameters, and the authors check that it matches the true posterior when the space is small enough to enumerate exactly, with and without constants. They also track how results shift as the expression space grows larger. The construction itself is clean and stays close to the original DSR pipeline, which is a strength; it avoids new variational machinery and simply applies the standard evidence lower bound to this discrete-continuous setting. The basic recovery result in toy regimes is a reasonable first validation that the approach can work at all. The soft spots are in the strength and scope of the supporting evidence. The abstract states that the method recovers the true posterior, yet the summary gives no numbers on how close the approximation is, no KL values or posterior probability comparisons, and no clear baselines or experimental controls. The scaling trends are mentioned but without specifics on what performance metric is used or how training stability was handled. This leaves the central claim plausible but hard to judge beyond the smallest cases. The assumption that the network can represent the variational posterior faithfully over trees holds in the reported settings, but it is not stress-tested with larger or noisier data. This paper is mainly for researchers already working with neural-guided symbolic regression who want to add uncertainty quantification. Someone focused on scientific modeling with limited data might find the direction worth following, though they would likely want to see more quantitative results before adopting it. I would send it to peer review because the idea is straightforward, the basic check is in place, and referees could usefully push on the experimental design and scope.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Deep Variational Inference Symbolic Regression (DVISR) as a variational Bayesian extension of Deep Symbolic Regression (DSR). It replaces the DSR reward with the integrand of the evidence lower bound (ELBO) and extends the neural network to output distributions over both discrete expression trees and continuous constants. The central empirical claim is that DVISR recovers the true posterior over symbolic expressions in simple enumerable settings (with and without constant tokens) and that performance trends can be examined as the size of the expression space increases.

Significance. If the recovery claim holds under quantitative scrutiny, the work provides a direct and standard application of variational inference to the joint discrete-continuous space of symbolic models. This is a natural and non-circular extension of existing DSR machinery, offering a feasible route toward scalable Bayesian symbolic regression with uncertainty quantification over full expressions. The limited-scope validation in enumerable regimes is a reasonable starting point for assessing feasibility.

major comments (2)

Abstract and experimental section: the claim that DVISR 'recovers the true posterior in simple settings' is stated without any reported quantitative metrics (e.g., KL divergence, posterior probability of the ground-truth expression, or total variation distance), experimental details on how the true posterior is computed for comparison, or baselines such as exact enumeration or MCMC. This evidence is load-bearing for the central claim.
Method description: while the substitution of the ELBO integrand for the reward is a standard construction, the paper does not specify how the variational posterior is parameterized to ensure it can faithfully represent distributions over discrete trees of varying depth and continuous constants, which is required for the recovery result to be non-trivial.

minor comments (3)

Notation for the joint discrete-continuous posterior and the corresponding variational family should be introduced more explicitly, perhaps with a dedicated equation, to avoid ambiguity when constants are or are not present.
The description of how performance changes with expression-space size would benefit from a table or plot that reports both recovery quality and computational cost as a function of space cardinality.
A few sentences clarifying the relationship to prior work on variational inference over program spaces (e.g., in program synthesis or Bayesian program learning) would strengthen the positioning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which helps clarify the presentation of our central claims. We will revise the manuscript to incorporate quantitative metrics and expanded methodological details as requested. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and experimental section: the claim that DVISR 'recovers the true posterior in simple settings' is stated without any reported quantitative metrics (e.g., KL divergence, posterior probability of the ground-truth expression, or total variation distance), experimental details on how the true posterior is computed for comparison, or baselines such as exact enumeration or MCMC. This evidence is load-bearing for the central claim.

Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics would strengthen the evidence. In the simple enumerable regimes, the true posterior is obtained by exhaustive enumeration over the finite expression space (with and without constants), which serves as the ground truth for comparison. We will add explicit metrics including KL divergence to the true posterior, the posterior mass on the ground-truth expression, and total variation distance in the revised experimental section, along with full details of the enumeration procedure and exact enumeration as a baseline. revision: yes
Referee: Method description: while the substitution of the ELBO integrand for the reward is a standard construction, the paper does not specify how the variational posterior is parameterized to ensure it can faithfully represent distributions over discrete trees of varying depth and continuous constants, which is required for the recovery result to be non-trivial.

Authors: The current description notes the extension to output distributions over constants but is indeed brief. The variational posterior is parameterized via an RNN that generates expression trees token-by-token using categorical distributions over the library (operators, variables, constants), with tree depth handled by the sequential generation process and termination tokens. For each constant token, the network outputs parameters of a Gaussian distribution. We will expand the method section with a precise description of this architecture, the ELBO estimation procedure, and how it supports faithful representation over the joint discrete-continuous space. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the variational extension or empirical claims

full rationale

The paper applies the standard evidence lower bound (ELBO) from variational inference by substituting its integrand for the DSR reward function. This is a direct, non-circular construction from established VI principles rather than a self-definition or fitted input renamed as a prediction. The central empirical claim—recovery of the true posterior in simple enumerable settings—is validated by direct comparison to ground-truth posteriors, not by algebraic reduction to parameters defined inside the paper. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or smuggled ansatzes are used to force the results; the derivation remains independent of the reported experiments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on the assumption that a neural network can parameterize a useful variational distribution over symbolic expressions and that the ELBO can serve as an effective training signal; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced beyond standard variational inference components.

axioms (1)

standard math The evidence lower bound provides a tractable surrogate for the marginal likelihood that can be optimized via gradient methods.
Standard result in variational inference literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5463 in / 1182 out tokens · 57372 ms · 2026-05-09T19:15:19.578927+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Science Advances , author =

A. Science Advances , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav6971 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav6971 2020
[2]

Bayesian

Jin, Ying and Fu, Weilin and Kang, Jian and Guo, Jiadong and Guo, Jian , month = jan, year =. Bayesian
[3]

and Larma, Mikel Landajuela and Mundhenk, Terrell N

Petersen, Brenden K. and Larma, Mikel Landajuela and Mundhenk, Terrell N. and Santiago, Claudio Prata and Kim, Soo Kyung and Kim, Joanne Taery , year =. Deep symbolic regression:. International
[4]

Simple. Mach. Learn. , author =. 1992 , note =. doi:10.1007/BF00992696 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1007/bf00992696 1992
[5]

PLOS Computational Biology , author =

Bayesian polynomial neural networks and polynomial neural ordinary differential equations , volume =. PLOS Computational Biology , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012414 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012414 2024
[6]

Chen, Ricky T. Q. and Rubanova, Yulia and Bettencourt, Jesse and Duvenaud, David , year =. Neural ordinary differential equations , abstract =. Proceedings of the 32nd
[7]

Koza , title =

John R. Koza , title =. 1992 , publisher =

1992
[8]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

End-to-end symbolic regression with transformers , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[9]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

Transformer-based planning for symbolic regression , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[10]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

Symbolic regression with a learned concept library , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[11]

PeerJ Computer Science , volume=

Symbolic expression generation via variational auto-encoder , author=. PeerJ Computer Science , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[12]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

A unified framework for deep symbolic regression , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[13]

IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , volume=

Integration of neural network-based symbolic regression in deep learning for scientific discovery , author=. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[14]

and Soljačić, Marin , journal=

Zhang, Michael and Kim, Samuel and Lu, Peter Y. and Soljačić, Marin , journal=. Deep Learning and Symbolic Regression for Discovering Parametric Equations , year=
[15]

Science advances , volume=

AI Feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression , author=. Science advances , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[16]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

AI Feynman 2.0: Pareto-optimal symbolic regression exploiting graph modularity , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00053 (2021)

Symbolic regression via neural-guided genetic programming population seeding , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00053 , year=

work page arXiv
[18]

and Savani, Rahul , title=

Castellini, Jacopo and Devlin, Sam and Oliehoek, Frans A. and Savani, Rahul , title=. Neural Computing and Applications , year=. doi:10.1007/s00521-022-07960-5 , url=

work page doi:10.1007/s00521-022-07960-5
[19]

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

John Schulman and Filip Wolski and Prafulla Dhariwal and Alec Radford and Oleg Klimov , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2017 , url =. 1707.06347 , timestamp =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[20]

2024 , eprint=

DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024
[21]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00282 , year=

Deep generative symbolic regression , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00282 , year=

work page arXiv
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08892 , year=

Bayesian symbolic regression , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08892 , year=

work page arXiv 1910
[23]

Neural Computing and Applications , volume=

Evolutionary variational inference for Bayesian generalized nonlinear models , author=. Neural Computing and Applications , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

2024
[24]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

Learning libraries of subroutines for neurally--guided bayesian program induction , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[25]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06751 , year=

Complexity-Aware Deep Symbolic Regression with Robust Risk-Seeking Policy Gradients , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06751 , year=

work page arXiv
[26]

Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

A bayesian-symbolic approach to reasoning and learning in intuitive physics , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=
[27]

Machine Learning with Applications , volume=

Uncertainty quantification based on symbolic regression and probabilistic programming and its application , author=. Machine Learning with Applications , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

2025
[28]

Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference , pages=

A probabilistic linear genetic programming with stochastic context-free grammar for solving symbolic regression problems , author=. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference , pages=
[29]

Hubin, Aliaksandr and Storvik, Geir and Frommlet, Florian , title =. J. Artif. Int. Res. , month = jan, pages =. 2022 , issue_date =. doi:10.1613/jair.1.13047 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1613/jair.1.13047 2022
[30]

Gunapati, Geetakrishnasai and Jain, Anirudh and Srijith, P. K. and Desai, Shantanu , year=. Variational inference as an alternative to MCMC for parameter estimation and model selection , volume=. doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.64 , journal=

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.64 2021
[31]

M., KUCUKELBIR, A., MCAULIFFE, J

David M. Blei and Alp Kucukelbir and Jon D. McAuliffe , title =. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume =. 2017 , publisher =. doi:10.1080/01621459.2017.1285773 , URL =

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.2017.1285773 2017
[32]

and Welling, Max , title =

Salimans, Tim and Kingma, Diederik P. and Welling, Max , title =. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 37 , pages =. 2015 , publisher =

2015