Can Test-time Computation Mitigate Reproduction Bias in Neural Symbolic Regression?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Mathematical expressions play a central role in scientific discovery. Symbolic regression aims to automatically discover such expressions from given numerical data. Recently, Neural symbolic regression (NSR) methods that involve Transformers pre-trained on synthetic datasets have gained attention for their fast inference, but they often perform poorly, especially with many input variables. In this study, we analyze NSR from both theoretical and empirical perspectives and show that (1) ordinary token-by-token generation is ill-suited for NSR, as Transformers cannot compositionally generate tokens while validating numerical consistency, and (2) the search space of NSR methods is greatly restricted due to reproduction bias, where the majority of generated expressions are merely copied from the training data. We further examine whether tailored test-time strategies can reduce reproduction bias and show that providing additional information at test time effectively mitigates it. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the limitation of NSR approaches and provide guidance for designing more robust and generalizable methods. Code is available at https://github.com/Shun-0922/Mem-Bias-NSR .
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2025.
Builds on
26 of 45 references.
References · 26
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2014Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networkscited by 2,986
- 2019AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regressioncited by 548
- 2019Deep symbolic regression: Recovering mathematical expressions from data via risk-seeking policy gradientscited by 309
- 2023Towards Revealing the Mystery behind Chain of Thought: A Theoretical Perspectivecited by 294
- 2019Deep Learning for Symbolic Mathematicscited by 270
- 2021Contemporary Symbolic Regression Methods and their Relative Performancecited by 215
- 2022End-to-end symbolic regression with transformerscited by 203
- 2022The Parallelism Tradeoff: Limitations of Log-Precision Transformerscited by 193
- 2021Neural Symbolic Regression that Scalescited by 192
- 2020AI Feynman 2.0: Pareto-optimal symbolic regression exploiting graph modularitycited by 144
- 2021SymbolicGPT: A Generative Transformer Model for Symbolic Regressioncited by 105
14 more
- 2021Symbolic Regression via Neural-Guided Genetic Programming Population Seedingcited by 101
- 2024Symbolic Regression with a Learned Concept Librarycited by 83
- 2023Transformer-based Planning for Symbolic Regressioncited by 79
- 2022Symbolic Regression is NP-hardcited by 71
- 2022A Logic for Expressing Log-Precision Transformerscited by 67
- 2022Symbolic Physics Learner: Discovering governing equations via Monte Carlo tree searchcited by 66
- 2023Deep symbolic regression for physics guided by units constraints: toward the automated discovery of physical lawscited by 55
- 2024In-Context Symbolic Regression: Leveraging Large Language Models for Function Discoverycited by 31
- 2023Average-Hard Attention Transformers are Constant-Depth Uniform Threshold Circuitscited by 26
- 2023Controllable Neural Symbolic Regressioncited by 20
- 2021Symbolic regression for scientific discovery: an application to wind speed forecastingcited by 16
- 2023A Transformer Model for Symbolic Regression towards Scientific Discoverycited by 9
- 2024In Context Learning and Reasoning for Symbolic Regression with Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2024Generative Pre-Trained Transformer for Symbolic Regression Base In-Context Reinforcement Learningcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.