A neural symbolic model for space physics
Cranmer, M. D. Interpretable Machine Learning for the Physical Sciences. PhD thesis, Princeton Univ. (2023).
Pearce Williams, L. Faraday’s discovery of electromagnetic induction. Contemp. Phys. 5, 28–37 (1963).
Google Scholar
Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932–3937 (2016).
Google Scholar
De Florio, M., Kevrekidis, I. G. & Karniadakis, G. E. AI-Lorenz: a physics-data-driven framework for black-box and gray-box identification of chaotic systems with symbolic regression. Chaos Solitons Fractals 188, 115538 (2024).
Google Scholar
Ahmadi Daryakenari, N., De Florio, M., Shukla, K. & Karniadakis, G. E. AI-Aristotle: a physics-informed framework for systems biology gray-box identification. PLoS Comput. Biol. 20, e1011916 (2024).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. D. & Lipson, H. Age–fitness Pareto optimization. In Proc. 12th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation 543–544 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2010).
Schmidt, M. & Lipson, H. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. Science 324, 81–85 (2009).
Google Scholar
La Cava, W., Helmuth, T., Spector, L. & Moore, J. H. A probabilistic and multi-objective analysis of lexicase selection and ε-lexicase selection. Evol. Comput. 27, 377–402 (2019).
Google Scholar
La Cava, W., Singh, T. R., Taggart, J., Suri, S. & Moore, J. H. Learning concise representations for regression by evolving networks of trees. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations Vol. 6 (ed. Sainath, T.) 3987–4002 (ICLR, 2019).
Virgolin, M., Alderliesten, T., Witteveen, C. & Bosman, P. A. Improving model-based genetic programming for symbolic regression of small expressions. Evol. Comput. 29, 211–237 (2021).
Google Scholar
McCormick, T. gplearn: genetic programming in Python. GitHub https://github.com/trevorstephens/gplearn (2019).
De Franca, F. & Aldeia, G. Interaction-transformation evolutionary algorithm for symbolic regression. Evol. Comput. 29, 367–390 (2021).
Google Scholar
Arnaldo, I., Krawiec, K. & O’Reilly, U.-M. Multiple regression genetic programming. In Proc. 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (ed. Igel, C.) 879–886 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2014).
Kommenda, M., Burlacu, B., Kronberger, G. & Affenzeller, M. Parameter identification for symbolic regression using nonlinear least squares. Genet. Program. Evolvable Mach. 21, 471–501 (2020).
Google Scholar
Virgolin, M., Alderliesten, T. & Bosman, P. A. Linear scaling with and within semantic backpropagation-based genetic programming for symbolic regression. In Proc. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (ed. López-Ibáñez, M.) 1084–1092 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019).
Kamienny, P.-A., Lample, G., Lamprier, S. & Virgolin, M. Deep generative symbolic regression with Monte-Carlo-tree-search. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 202, 15655–15668 (2023).
Lu, Q., Tao, F., Zhou, S. & Wang, Z. Incorporating actor–critic in Monte Carlo tree search for symbolic regression. Neural Comput. Appl. 33, 8495–8511 (2021).
Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Liu, Y. & Sun, H. Reinforcement symbolic regression machine. In Proc. 12th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2024).
Xie, Y. et al. An efficient and generalizable symbolic regression method for time series analysis. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03986 (2024).
Sun, F., Liu, Y., Wang, J.-X. & Sun, H. Symbolic physics learner: discovering governing equations via Monte Carlo tree search. In Proc. 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2023).
Valipour, M., You, B., Panju, M. & Ghodsi, A. SymbolicGPT: a generative transformer model for symbolic regression. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.14131 (2021).
Chen, T., Li, Z., Xu, P. & Zheng, H. Bootstrapping OTS-Funcimg pre-training model (Botfip): a comprehensive multimodal scientific computing framework and its application in symbolic regression task. Complex Intell. Syst. 11, 417 (2025).
Xing, H., Salleb-Aouissi, A. & Verma, N. Automated symbolic law discovery: a computer vision approach. In Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 660–668 (AAAI, 2021).
Kamienny, P.-A., d’Ascoli, S., Lample, G. & Charton, F. End-to-end symbolic regression with transformers. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 10269–10281 (2022).
Biggio, L., Bendinelli, T., Neitz, A., Lucchi, A. & Parascandolo, G. Neural symbolic regression that scales. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 139, 936–945 (2021).
Shojaee, P., Meidani, K., Barati Farimani, A. & Reddy, C. Transformer-based planning for symbolic regression. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 36, 45907–45919 (2023).
Udrescu, S.-M. & Tegmark, M. AI Feynman: a physics-inspired method for symbolic regression. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay2631 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cranmer, M. Interpretable machine learning for science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01582 (2023).
Burlacu, B., Kronberger, G. & Kommenda, M. Operon C++: an efficient genetic programming framework for symbolic regression. In Proc. 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion 1562–1570 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020).
Grayeli, A., Sehgal, A., Costilla Reyes, O., Cranmer, M. & Chaudhuri, S. Symbolic regression with a learned concept library. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 37, 44678–44709 (2024).
Shojaee, P., Meidani, K., Gupta, S., Farimani, A. B. & Reddy, C. K. LLM-SR: scientific equation discovery via programming with large language models. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2025).
Landajuela, M. et al. A unified framework for deep symbolic regression. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 33985–33998 (2022).
Tenachi, W., Ibata, R. & Diakogiannis, F. I. Deep symbolic regression for physics guided by units constraints: toward the automated discovery of physical laws. Astrophys. J. 959, 99 (2023).
Google Scholar
Udrescu, S.-M. et al. AI Feynman 2.0: Pareto-optimal symbolic regression exploiting graph modularity. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 4860–4871 (2020).
Scholl, P., Bieker, K., Hauger, H. & Kutyniok, G. ParFam—(neural guided) symbolic regression via continuous global optimization. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2025).
Liu, Z. et al. KAN: Kolmogorov–Arnold networks. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2025).
Liu, Z., Ma, P., Wang, Y., Matusik, W. & Tegmark, M. KAN 2.0: Kolmogorov–Arnold networks meet science. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10205 (2024).
Jin, Y., Fu, W., Kang, J., Guo, J. & Guo, J. Bayesian symbolic regression. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08892 (2019).
La Cava, W. et al. Contemporary symbolic regression methods and their relative performance. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2021, 1–16 (2021).
Feynman, R., Leighton, R. & Sands, M. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I: The New Millennium Edition: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat (Basic Books, 2011).
Feynman, R., Leighton, R. & Sands, M. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 2 (Pearson/Addison-Wesley, 1963).
Feynman, R., Leighton, R. & Sands, M. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3 (Pearson/Addison-Wesley, 1963).
SILSO World Data Center. The International Sunspot Number (1749–2023). International Sunspot Number Monthly Bulletin and Online Catalogue (2023).
Hathaway, D. H., Wilson, R. M. & Reichmann, E. J. The shape of the sunspot cycle. Sol. Phys. 151, 177–190 (1994).
Google Scholar
Upton, L. A. & Hathaway, D. H. Solar cycle precursors and the outlook for cycle 25. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 128, e2023JA031681 (2023).
Brehm, N. et al. Eleven-year solar cycles over the last millennium revealed by radiocarbon in tree rings. Nat. Geosci. 14, 10–15 (2021).
Google Scholar
Wang, C.-P. et al. Empirical modeling of plasma sheet pressure and three-dimensional force-balanced magnetospheric magnetic field structure: 1. Observation. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 118, 6154–6165 (2013).
Google Scholar
Yue, C., Wang, C.-P., Zaharia, S. G., Xing, X. & Lyons, L. Empirical modeling of plasma sheet pressure and three-dimensional force-balanced magnetospheric magnetic field structure: 2. Modeling. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 118, 6166–6175 (2013).
Google Scholar
Lui, A. T. & Hamilton, D. C. Radial profiles of quiet time magnetospheric parameters. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 97, 19325–19332 (1992).
Google Scholar
Hotta, H. & Kusano, K. Solar differential rotation reproduced with high-resolution simulation. Nat. Astron. 5, 1100–1102 (2021).
Google Scholar
Vasil, G. M. et al. The solar dynamo begins near the surface. Nature 629, 769–772 (2024).
Google Scholar
Snodgrass, H. B. Magnetic rotation of the solar photosphere. Astrophys. J. 270, 288–299 (1983).
Rao, S. et al. Height-dependent differential rotation of the solar atmosphere detected by CHASE. Nat. Astron. 8, 1102–1109 (2024).
Dere, K. P., Landi, E., Mason, H. E., Monsignori Fossi, B. C. & Young, P. R. CHIANTI—an atomic database for emission lines. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 125, 149–173 (1997).
Google Scholar
Dufresne, R. P. et al. CHIANTI—an atomic database for emission lines—paper. XVIII. Version 11, advanced ionization equilibrium models: density and charge transfer effects. Astrophys. J. 974, 71 (2024).
Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Y., Reader, J. & NIST ASD Team. NIST Atomic Spectra Database v.5.12 (NIST, accessed 20 October 2024); https://physics.nist.gov/asd
Aschwanden, M. J. Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction (Praxis–Springer, 2004).
Mason, H. E. & Monsignori Fossi, B. C. Spectroscopic diagnostics in the VUV for solar and stellar plasmas. Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 6, 123–179 (1994).
Google Scholar
Raymond, J. C. & Smith, B. W. Soft X-ray spectrum of a hot plasma. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 35, 419–439 (1977).
Google Scholar
Xiao, C. et al. Evidence for lunar tide effects in Earth’s plasmasphere. Nat. Phys. 19, 486–491 (2023).
Google Scholar
RBSP/EFW Data (Univ. Minnesota, accessed 24 September 2025); http://www.space.umn.edu/rbspefw-data/
Zhang, Z., Liu, W. L., Zhang, D. J. & Cao, J. B. Estimating the corotation lag of the plasmasphere based on the electric field measurements of the Van Allen Probes. Adv. Space Res. 73, 758–766 (2024).
Google Scholar
Silver, D. et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science 362, 1140–1144 (2018).
Google Scholar
Touvron, H. et al. Llama 2: open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 (2023).
Maurya, A., Ye, J., Rafique, M. M., Cappello, F. & Nicolae, B. Deep optimizer states: towards scalable training of transformer models using interleaved offloading. In Proc. 25th International Middleware Conference, 404–416 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2024).
Lample, G. & Charton, F. Deep learning for symbolic mathematics. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2020).
Charton, F. Linear algebra with transformers. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. (2022).
Bendinelli, T., Biggio, L. & Kamienny, P.-A. Controllable neural symbolic regression. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 202, 2063–2077 (2023).
Vaswani, A. et al. Attention is all you need. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 30, 5998–6008 (2017).
Fletcher, R. Practical Methods of Optimization 2nd ed. (Wiley, 1987).
Ying, J. PhyE2E_datas. figshare https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/PhyE2E_datas/29615831 (2025).
Ying, J. Jie0618/PhysicsRegression: code for “A neural symbolic model for space physics” version v1.0.0. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16305086 (2025).
Don’t miss more hot News like this! Click here to discover the latest in AI news!
2025-10-15 00:00:00
