Multi-Modal Learning meets Genetic Programming: Analyzing Alignment in Latent Space Optimization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Symbolic regression (SR) aims to discover mathematical expressions from data, a task traditionally tackled using Genetic Programming (GP) through combinatorial search over symbolic structures. Latent Space Optimization (LSO) methods use neural encoders to map symbolic expressions into continuous spaces, transforming the combinatorial search into continuous optimization. SNIP (Meidani et al., 2024), a contrastive pre-training model inspired by CLIP, advances LSO by introducing a multi-modal approach: aligning symbolic and numeric encoders in a shared latent space to learn the phenotype-genotype mapping, enabling optimization in the numeric space to implicitly guide symbolic search. However, this relies on fine-grained cross-modal alignment, whereas literature on similar models like CLIP reveals that such an alignment is typically coarse-grained. In this paper, we investigate whether SNIP delivers on its promise of effective bi-modal optimization for SR. Our experiments show that: (1) cross-modal alignment does not improve during optimization, even as fitness increases, and (2) the alignment learned by SNIP is too coarse to efficiently conduct principled search in the symbolic space. These findings reveal that while multi-modal LSO holds significant potential for SR, effective alignment-guided optimization remains unrealized in practice, highlighting fine-grained alignment as a critical direction for future work.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2026.
Builds on
24 of 43 references.
References · 24
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,662
- 2016The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Tutorialcited by 364
- 2017Grammar Variational Autoencodercited by 283
- 2021Contemporary Symbolic Regression Methods and their Relative Performancecited by 209
- 2022End-to-end symbolic regression with transformerscited by 195
- 2021Neural Symbolic Regression that Scalescited by 185
- 2018Syntax-Directed Variational Autoencoder for Structured Datacited by 103
- 2022Does CLIP Bind Concepts? Probing Compositionality in Large Image Modelscited by 101
- 2022SymFormer: End-to-end symbolic regression using transformer-based architecturecited by 56
- 2023Equivariant Similarity for Vision-Language Foundation Modelscited by 51
- 2023SNIP: Bridging Mathematical Symbolic and Numeric Realms with Unified Pre-trainingcited by 41
12 more
- 2023Mass-Producing Failures of Multimodal Systems with Language Modelscited by 36
- 2024Symbolic regression via MDLformer-guided search: from minimizing prediction error to minimizing description lengthcited by 16
- 2023Efficient Generator of Mathematical Expressions for Symbolic Regressioncited by 13
- 2024MMSR: Symbolic Regression is a Multi-Modal Information Fusion Taskcited by 13
- 2026GENSR: Symbolic Regression Based in Equation Generative Spacecited by 6
- 2025Transformer Semantic Genetic Programming for Symbolic Regressioncited by 5
- 2025[RETRACTED]Evolving Form and Function: Dual-Objective Optimization in Neural Symbolic Regression Networkscited by 3
- 2025Analyzing Generalization in Pre-Trained Symbolic Regressioncited by 2
- 2025Understanding Hardness of Vision-Language Compositionality from A Token-level Causal Lenscited by 2
- 2025Learning Semantics-aware Search Operators for Genetic Programmingcited by 1
- 2025Discovering Mathematical Equations with Diffusion Language Modelcited by 1
- 2025Symbolic-Diffusion: Deep Learning Based Symbolic Regression with D3PM Discrete Token Diffusioncited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.