mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Symbolic recovery of PDEs from measurement data

arXiv 2602.15603 ↗First posted 17 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.SC math.OCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Models based on partial differential equations (PDEs) are powerful for describing a wide range of complex phenomena in the natural sciences. Accurately identifying the PDE model, which represents the underlying physical law, is essential for a proper understanding of the problem. This reconstruction typically relies on indirect and noisy measurements of the system's state and, without specifically tailored methods, rarely yields symbolic expressions, thereby limiting interpretability. In this work, we address this limitation by considering neural network architectures based on rational functions for the symbolic representation of physical laws. These networks combine the approximation power of rational functions with the flexibility to represent arithmetic operations, and generalize ParFam and EQL-type architectures used in symbolic regression for physical law learning. We further establish regularity results for these symbolic networks. Our main contribution is a reconstruction result showing that, if there exists an admissible physical law that is expressible within the symbolic network architecture, then in the limit of noiseless and complete measurements, symbolic networks recover a physical law within the PDE model that is representable by the architecture. Moreover, the recovered law corresponds to a regularization-minimizing parameterization, promoting interpretability and sparsity in case of L1-regularization. Under an additional identifiability condition, the unique true physical law is recovered. These reconstruction and regularity results are derived at the continuous level prior to discretization due to a formulation in function space. Empirical results using the ParFam architecture are consistent with the theoretical findings and suggest the feasibility of reconstructing interpretable physical laws in practice.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 102 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2026.

Builds on

38 of 102 references.

References · 38

  1. 2020Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equationscited by 2,908
  2. 2019DeepONet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operatorscited by 2,018
  3. 2019AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regressioncited by 548
  4. 2019Deep symbolic regression: Recovering mathematical expressions from data via risk-seeking policy gradientscited by 309
  5. 2020Model Reduction and Neural Networks for Parametric PDEscited by 258
  6. 2023Neural Operators for Accelerating Scientific Simulations and Designcited by 221
  7. 2021Contemporary Symbolic Regression Methods and their Relative Performancecited by 215
  8. 2022End-to-end symbolic regression with transformerscited by 203
  9. 2021Neural Symbolic Regression that Scalescited by 192
  10. 2018Learning Equations for Extrapolation and Controlcited by 156
  11. 2016Extrapolation and learning equationscited by 110
  12. 2023A Mathematical Guide to Operator Learningcited by 76
26 more
  1. 2020Rational neural networkscited by 75
  2. 2022Symbolic Physics Learner: Discovering governing equations via Monte Carlo tree searchcited by 66
  3. 2020DeepGreen: Deep Learning of Green's Functions for Nonlinear Boundary Value Problemscited by 62
  4. 2017Neural networks and rational functionscited by 40
  5. 2024Numerical analysis of physics-informed neural networks and related models in physics-informed machine learningcited by 39
  6. 2022Deep Learning Methods for Partial Differential Equations and Related Parameter Identification Problemscited by 34
  7. 2023Deep Generative Symbolic Regressioncited by 28
  8. 2021PDE-constrained Models with Neural Network Terms: Optimization and Global Convergencecited by 12
  9. 2023ParFam -- (Neural Guided) Symbolic Regression Based on Continuous Global Optimizationcited by 10
  10. 2022Symbolic Recovery of Differential Equations: The Identifiability Problemcited by 8
  11. 2020Neural Power Unitscited by 7
  12. 2022Learning-informed parameter identification in nonlinear time-dependent PDEscited by 7
  13. 2025Identifiability Challenges in Sparse Linear Ordinary Differential Equationscited by 7
  14. 2025When is a System Discoverable from Data? Discovery Requires Chaoscited by 6
  15. 2022A descent algorithm for the optimal control of ReLU neural network informed PDEs based on approximate directional derivativescited by 5
  16. 2020Optimization with learning-informed differential equation constraints and its applicationscited by 4
  17. 2024On uniqueness in structured model learningcited by 4
  18. 2022First-order conditions for the optimal control of learning-informed nonsmooth PDEscited by 3
  19. 2024Robust identifiability for symbolic recovery of differential equationscited by 3
  20. 2025Global Convergence of Adjoint-Optimized Neural PDEscited by 3
  21. 2021Design of the monodomain model by artificial neural networkscited by 2
  22. 2021Discretization of parameter identification in PDEs using Neural Networkscited by 2
  23. 2023On the Identification and Optimization of Nonsmooth Superposition Operators in Semilinear Elliptic PDEscited by 2
  24. 2024Sequential bi-level regularized inversion with application to hidden reaction law discoverycited by 2
  25. 2025C1-approximation with rational functions and rational neural networkscited by 2
  26. 2025Physically consistent model learning for reaction-diffusion systemscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.