Rethinking Symbolic Regression Datasets and Benchmarks for Scientific Discovery

Yoshitomo Matsubara, Naoya Chiba, Ryo Igarashi, Tatsunori Taniai, Yoshitaka Ushiku

Keywords: symbolic regression for scientific discovery, physics, datasets, benchmarks

TL;DR: We propose new datasets and evaluation metric to discuss the performance of symbolic regression for scientific discovery (SRSD).

Abstract: This paper revisits datasets and evaluation criteria for Symbolic Regression, a task of expressing given data using mathematical equations, specifically focused on its potential for scientific discovery. Focused on a set of formulas used in the existing datasets based on Feynman Lectures on Physics, we recreate 120 datasets to discuss the performance of symbolic regression for scientific discovery (SRSD). For each of the 120 SRSD datasets, we carefully review the properties of the formula and its variables to design reasonably realistic sampling range of values so that our new SRSD datasets can be used for evaluating the potential of SRSD such as whether or not an SR method can (re)discover physical laws from such datasets. As an evaluation metric, we also propose to use normalized edit distances between a predicted equation and the ground-truth equation trees. While existing metrics are either binary or errors between the target values and an SR model's predicted values for a given input, normalized edit distances evaluate a sort of similarity between the ground-truth and predicted equation trees. We have conducted experiments on our new SRSD datasets using five state-of-the-art SR methods in SRBench and a simple baseline based on a recent Transformer architecture. The results show that we provide a more realistic performance evaluation and open up a new machine learning-based approach for scientific discovery. We provide our datasets and code as part of the supplementary material.

Anonymous Url: I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.

No Acknowledgement Section: I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.

Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics

Submission Guidelines: Yes

Please Choose The Closest Area That Your Submission Falls Into: Machine Learning for Sciences (eg biology, physics, health sciences, social sciences, climate/sustainability )

Community Implementations: [ 1 code implementation](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:2206.10540/code)