CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Machine Learning in Materials ScienceEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence Applications

Automated Scientific Discovery: From Equation Discovery to Autonomous Discovery Systems

Open access
Kramer, Stefan, Cerrato, Mattia, Brugger, Jannis, Džeroski, Sašo, King, Ross·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2305.02251arXiv 2305.02251
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The paper surveys automated scientific discovery, from equation discovery and symbolic regression to autonomous discovery systems and agents. It discusses the individual approaches from a "big picture" perspective and in context, but also discusses open issues and recent topics like the various roles of deep neural networks in this area, aiding in the discovery of human-interpretable knowledge. Further, we will present closed-loop scientific discovery systems, starting with the pioneering work on the Adam system up to current efforts in fields from material science to astronomy. Finally, we will elaborate on autonomy from a machine learning perspective, but also in analogy to the autonomy levels in autonomous driving. The maximal level, level five, is defined to require no human intervention at all in the production of scientific knowledge. Achieving this is one step towards solving the Nobel Turing Grand Challenge to develop AI Scientists: AI systems capable of making Nobel-quality scientific discoveries highly autonomously at a level comparable, and possibly superior, to the best human scientists by 2050.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.02251

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing systems are highly tailored to process specific types of data for designated tasks and domains.

    “Nevertheless, these existing systems are highly tailored to process specific types of data for designated tasks and domains.”

    From MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation (2023) · cites this paper as Kramer et al., 2023

    Section 4.2, Open Problems, says existing AI Scientist systems can execute only a small, stereotypical set of experiment types, supporting the claim that their tasks are constrained. The paper also discusses how data modalities affect a system’s applicability, but the cited passages do not establish that existing systems are highly tailored to process specific data types across designated domains. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Human cultural exploration, in science as in arts, will increasingly be in collaboration with machines.

    “Undoubtedly, human cultural exploration, in science as in arts, will increasingly be in collaboration with machines 78,79 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [79]

  • Machines can learn to seek and transmit information and can act as conversational and pedagogical agents, similar to teachers.

    “Besides serving as a persistent medium of cultural storage analogous to a book, machines can learn to seek and transmit information 79,81 and can act as conversational and pedagogical agents, similar to teachers 82 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [79]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. Al-Helali, B., Chen, Q., Xue, B., & Zhang, M. (2020). GP-based feature selection and weighted KNN-based instance selection for symbolic regression with incomplete data. In 2020 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence, SSCI 2020, Canberra, Australia, December 1-4, 2020, pp. 905-912. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / S S C I 4 7 8 0 3 . 2 0 2 0 . 9 3 0 8 3 · DOI
  2. Beeler, C., Subramanian, S. G., Sprague, K., Baula, M., Chatti, N., Dawit, A., Li, X., Paquin, N., Shahen, M., Yang, Z., Bellinger, C., Crowley, M., & Tamblyn, I. (2024). ChemGymRL: A customizable interactive framework for reinforcement learning for digital chemistry. Digital Discovery, 3, 742-758. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 9 / D 3 D D 0 0 1 8 3 · DOI
  3. K Bendinelli, T., Biggio, L., & Kamienny, P. (2023). Controllable neural symbolic regression. In: Krause, A., Brunskill, E., Cho, K., Engelhardt, B., Sabato, S., Scarlett, J. (eds.) International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 202, 2063-2077. · DOI
  4. Berghaus, D., Cvejoski, K., Seifner, P., Ojeda, C., & Sanchez, R. (2024). Foundation inference models for markov jump processes. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). h t p s : / /
  5. Biggio, L., Bendinelli, T., Neitz, A., Lucchi, A., & Parascandolo, G. (2021). Neural symbolic regression that scales. In: Meila, M., Zhang, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 139, pp. 936-945. Virtual event. h t : / / p
  6. Brence, J., Dzeroski, S., & Todorovski, L. (2023). Dimensionally-consistent equation discovery through probabilistic attribute grammars. Information Sciences, 632, 742-756. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . i n s . 2 0 2 3 . 0 3 . 0 7 · DOI
  7. Brugger, J., Pfanschilling, V., Richter, D., Mezini, M., & Kramer, S. (2025). Prompting neural-guided equa- tion discovery based on residuals. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on discovery science 2025. Accepted for publication.
  8. Bühlmann, P., Peters, J., & Ernest, J. (2014). CAM: Causal additive models, high-dimensional order search and penalized regression. Annals of Statistics, 42(6), 2526-2556.
  9. Bychkov, A., Issan, I., Pogudin, G., & Krämer, B. (2024). Exact and optimal quadratization of nonlinear finite-dimensional non-autonomous dynamical systems. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 23(1), 982-1016.
  10. Cerrato, M., Schmitt, N., Baur, L., Finkelstein, E., Jukic, S., Münzel, L., Paul, F.P., Pfannes, P., Rohr, B., Schellenberg, J., Wolf, P., & Kramer, S. (2024). Science-Gym: A simple testbed for ai-driven scientific discovery. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Discovery Science (DS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 15243, pp. 229-243. Springer, Pisa, Italy. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 -3 -0 3 1 -7 8 9 7 7 -9 _ 1 · DOI
  11. Chanussot, Lea. (2021). The open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges. ACS Catalysis, 11(10), 6059-6072.
  12. Chaushevska, M., Todorovski, L., Brence, J., & Džeroski, S. (2022). Learning the probabilities in probabi- listic context-free grammars for arithmetical expressions from equation corpora. In Proceedings of the Slovenian conference on artificial intelligence.
  13. Chickering, D. M. (2002). Optimal structure identification with greedy search. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 507-554.
  14. Cohn, D. A., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M. I. (1996). Active learning with statistical models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4, 129-145.
  15. Cranmer, M.D., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Battaglia, P.W., Xu, R., Cranmer, K., Spergel, D.N., & Ho, S. (2020). Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 33. h t t p s : / / d l . a c m . o r g / d o i / 1 0 . 5 5 5 5 / 3 4 9 5 7 2 4 . 3 4 9 7 1 · DOI
  16. Du, Y., Guo, X., Shehu, A., & Zhao, L. (2022). Interpretable molecular graph generation via monotonic con- straints, pp. 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977172. · DOI
  17. Džeroski, S., & Petrovski, I. (1994). Discovering dynamics with genetic programming. In Proceedings of the seventh European conference on machine learning, pp. 347-350. Springer, Berlin.
  18. Džeroski, S., & Todorovski, L. (1993). Discovering dynamics. In Proceedings of the tenth international con- ference on machine learning, pp. 97-103.
  19. Morgan Kaufmann, Amherst, MA, USA.
  20. Ellis, K., Morales, L., Sable-Meyer, M., Solar-Lezama, A., & Tenenbaum, J.B. (2018). Library learning for neurally-guided Bayesian program induction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31 (NeurIPS 2018), 31.
  21. Freedman, D., & Humphreys, P. (1999). Are there algorithms that discover causal structure? Synthese, 121(1), 29-54.
  22. Ganzert, S., Guttmann, J., Steinmann, D., & Kramer, S. (2010). Equation discovery for model identification in respiratory mechanics of the mechanically ventilated human lung. In Proceedings of the 13th inter- national conference on discovery science (DS 2010), pp. 296-310. Springer, Berlin.
  23. Gao, M. L., Williams, J. P., & Kutz, J. N. (2025). Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics and Koopman operators with Shallow Recurrent Decoder Networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13329. · arXiv
  24. Gao, S., Fang, A., Huang, Y., Giunchiglia, V., Noori, A., Schwarz, J. R., Ektefaie, Y., Kondic, J., & Zitnik, M. (2024). Empowering biomedical discovery with AI agents. Cell, 187(22), 6125-6151.
  25. Garcon, A., Vexler, J., Budker, D., & Kramer, S. (2022). Deep neural networks to recover unknown physical parameters from oscillating time series. PLoS ONE, 17(5), 0268439.
  26. Grayeli, A., Sehgal, A., Costilla-Reyes, O., Cranmer, M.D., & Chaudhuri, S. (2024). Symbolic regression with a learned concept library. In Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS).
  27. Haider, C., Franca, F. O., Burlacu, B., & Kronberger, G. (2023). Shape-constrained multi-objective genetic programming for symbolic regression. Applied Soft Computing, 132, Article 109855. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . a s o c . 2 0 2 2 . 1 0 9 8 5 · DOI
  28. Hoyer, P. O., Janzing, D., Mooij, J. M., Peters, J., & Schölkopf, B. (2009). Nonlinear causal discovery with additive noise models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 21, 689-696.
  29. Huang, K.-M., & Zytkow, J. M. (1997). Discovering empirical equations from robot-collected data. In Pro- ceedings of the 10th international symposium on foundations of intelligent systems (ISMIS 1997), pp. 287-297. Springer, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
  30. Jansen, P. E. A. (2024). DiscoveryWorld: A virtual environment for developing and evaluating automated scientific discovery agents. In Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 37. Jiang, N., & Xue, Y. (2023). Symbolic regression via control variable genetic programming. In Proceedings of the European conference on machine learning and principles and practice of knowledge discovery in databases (ECML PKDD 2023), pp. 178-195. Springer, Berlin. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 -3 -0 3 1 -4 3 4 2 1 -1 _ 1 · DOI
  31. Wooldridge, M.J., Dy, J.G., Natarajan, S. (Eds.) Thirty-eighth AAAI conference on artificial intelli- gence, AAAI 2024, thirty-sixth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence, IAAI 2024, fourteenth symposium on educational advances in artificial intelligence, EAAI 2014, February 20-27, 2024, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 12901-12909. AAAI Press, Washington, DC. h t t p s : / / d o i . o / / A A A I . V 3 8 I 1 1 . 2 9 1 · DOI
  32. Jin, P., Huang, D., Zhang, R., Hu, X., Nan, Z., Du, Z., Guo, Q., & Chen, Y. (2023). Online symbolic regres- sion with informative query. In: Williams, B., Chen, Y., Neville, J. (Eds.) Thirty-seventh AAAI confer- ence on artificial intelligence, AAAI, pp. 5122-5130. AAAI Press, Washington, DC. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r / 1 0 . 1 6 0 9 / A A A I . V 3 7 I 4 . 2 5 6 4 · DOI
  33. Kamienny, P., Lample, G., Lamprier, S., & Virgolin, M. (2023). Deep generative symbolic regression with Monte-Carlo-Tree-Search. In: Krause, A., Brunskill, E., Cho, K., Engelhardt, B., Sabato, S., Scarlett, J. (Eds.) International conference on machine learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 202, pp. 15655-15668.
  34. Kamienny, P., d'Ascoli, S., Lample, G., & Charton, F. (2022). End-to-end symbolic regression with trans- formers. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, & A. Oh (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 35: Annual conference on neural information processing sys- tems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, November 28-December 9, 2022. New Orleans: LA, USA.
  35. Kim, J. T., Kim, S., & Petersen, B. K. (2020). An interactive visualization platform for deep symbolic regres- sion. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI, pp. 5261-5263. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 4 9 6 3 / I J C A I . 2 0 2 0 / 7 6 · DOI
  36. King, R., Peter, O., & Courtney, P. (2023). Robot scientists: From Adam to Eve to Genesis. In T. Science & O. Innovation (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in science: Challenges, opportunities and the future of research (pp. 127-138). Paris: OECD Publishing.
  37. King, R. D., Rowland, J., Oliver, S. G., Young, M., Aubrey, W., Byrne, E., Liakata, M., Markham, M., Pir, P., Soldatova, L. N., Sparkes, A., Whelan, K. E., & Clare, A. (2009). The automation of science. Science, 324(5923), 85-89.
  38. Kovachki, N., Li, Z., Liu, B., Azizzadenesheli, K., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A. M., & Anandkumar, A. (2023). Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24, 1-97.
  39. Kubalík, J., Derner, E., & Babuska, R. (2021). Multi-objective symbolic regression for physics-aware dynamic modeling. Expert Systems with Applications, 182, Article 115210. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . e s w a . 2 0 2 1 . 1 1 5 2 1 · DOI
  40. Kubalík, J., Derner, E., & Babuska, R. (2023). Toward physically plausible data-driven models: A novel neural network approach to symbolic regression. IEEE Access, 11, 61481-61501. h t t p s : / / d o i . o / · DOI
  41. / A C C E S S . 2 0 2 3 . 3 2 8 7 3 9 · DOI
  42. Lachapelle, S., Brouillard, P., Deleu, T., & Lacoste-Julien, S. (2020). Gradient-based neural DAG learning. In International conference on learning representations (ICLR).
  43. Langley, P. (1977). BACON: A production system that discovers empirical laws. In Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 1977), p. 344.
  44. Langley, P. (2024). Integrated systems for computational scientific discovery. In Proceedings of the thirty- eighth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-24), pp. 22598-22606. AAAI Press, Washing- ton, DC.
  45. Langley, P. (2022). Agents of exploration and discovery. AI Magazine, 42(4), 72-82.
  46. Langley, P. W., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G., & Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  47. Levina, E., & Bickel, P.J. (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of intrinsic dimension. In Advances in neural information processing systems 17, pp. 777-784.
  48. Li, Z., Kovachki, N.B., Azizzadenesheli, K., Liu, B., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A.M., & Anandkumar, A. (2021). Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on learning representations (ICLR 2021).
  49. Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Z., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2021). Learning nonlinear operators via DeepO- Net based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(3), 218-229.
  50. Lusch, B., Kutz, J. N., & Brunton, S. L. (2018). Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4950.
  51. Makke, N., & Chawla, S. (2024). Interpretable scientific discovery with symbolic regression: A reviews. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(2).
  52. Merler, M., Haitsiukevich, K., Dainese, N., & Marttinen, P. (2024). In-Context Symbolic Regression: Lever- aging Large Language Models for Function Discovery. In: Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 4: Student Research Workshop), pp. 589-606. Association for Computational Linguistics, Bangkok, Thailand. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 8 6 5 3 / v 1 / 2 0 2 4 . a c l -s r w . 4 9 . https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-srw.49 Accessed 2025-03-17
  53. Meyerson, E., Nelson, M. J., Bradley, H., Gaier, A., Moradi, A., Hoover, A. K., & Lehman, J. (2023). Lan- guage Model Crossover: Variation through Few-Shot Prompting. arXiv. Version Number: 3. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 8 5 5 0 / A R X I V . 2 3 0 2 . 1 2 1 7 0 . https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12170 Accessed 2025-03-27. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Mežnar, S., Džeroski, S., & Todorovski, L. (2023). Efficient generator of mathematical expressions for sym- bolic regression. Machine Learning, 112(11), 4563-4596.
  55. Ohana, R., McCabe, M., Meyer, L.T., Morel, R., Agocs, F.J., Beneitez, M., Berger, M., Burkhart, B., Dalziel, S.B., Fielding, D.B., Fortunato, D., Goldberg, J.A., Hirashima, K., Jiang, Y.-F., Kerswell, R., Maddu, S., Miller, J.M., Mukhopadhyay, P., Nixon, S.S., Shen, J., Watteaux, R., Blancard, B.R.-S., Rozet, F., Parker, L.H., Cranmer, M., & Ho, S. (2024). The Well: a large-scale collection of diverse physics simu- lations for machine learning. In: The Thirty-eight Conference on neural information processing systems datasets and benchmarks track. https://openreview.net/forum?id=00Sx577BT3
  56. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Petersen, B.K., Larma, M.L., Mundhenk, T.N., Santiago, C.P., Kim, S.K., & Kim, J.T. (2021). Deep symbolic regression: Recovering mathematical expressions from data via risk-seeking policy gradients. In Pro- ceedings of the 9th international conference on learning representations (ICLR 2021).
  58. Peters, J., Mooij, J. M., Janzing, D., & Schölkopf, B. (2014). Causal discovery with continuous additive noise models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1), 2009-2053. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 5 5 5 5 / 2 6 2 7 4 3 5 . 2 6 7 0 3 · DOI
  59. Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C. L., Ma, J., & Fergus, R. (2021). Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), 2016239118. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 7 3 / p n a s . 2 0 1 6 2 3 9 1 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Rong, Y., Bian, Y., Xu, T., Xie, W., Wei, Y., Huang, W., & Huang, J. (2020). Self-supervised graph trans- former on large-scale molecular data. In Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33. h : / / p
  61. Sahoo, S., Lampert, C., & Martius, G. (2018). Learning Equations for Extrapolation and Control. In Proceed- ings of the 35th international conference on machine learning, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 4442-4450. ISSN: 2640-3498. h t : / / p /
  62. Scanagatta, M., Campos, C. P., Corani, G., & Zaffalon, M. (2015). Learning bayesian networks with thou- sands of variables. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 28, 1855-1863.
  63. Seifner, P., Cvejoski, K., Körner, A., & Sanchez, R. (2025). Zero-shot imputation with foundation inference models for dynamical systems. In Proceedings of the international conference on learning representa- tions (ICLR). To appear. https://openreview.net/forum?id=NPSZ7V1CCY
  64. Shimizu, S., Hoyer, P. O., Hyvärinen, A., & Kerminen, A. (2006). A linear non-Gaussian acyclic model for causal discovery. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, 2003-2030.
  65. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  66. Sutton, R., & Barto, A. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  67. Todorovski, L., & Džeroski, S. (1997). Declarative bias in equation discovery. In Proceedings of the four- teenth international conference on machine learning, pp. 376-384.
  68. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
  69. Udrescu, S.-M., Tan, A., Feng, J., Neto, O., Wu, T., & Tegmark, M. (2020). AI Feynman 2.0: Pareto-optimal symbolic regression exploiting graph modularity. In Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 33.
  70. Udrescu, S.-M., & Tegmark, M. (2020). AI Feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression. Science Advances, 6(16), 2631.
  71. Villar, S., Yao, W., Hogg, D. W., Blum-Smith, B., & Dumitrascu, B. (2023). Dimensionless machine learning: Imposing exact units equivariance. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24, 109.
  72. Wang, D., Wang, Y., Evans, L., & Tiwary, P. (2024). From latent dynamics to meaningful representations. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(9), 3503-3513. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r / 1 0 . 1 0 2 1 / a c s . j c . 4 0 · DOI
  73. Washio, T., & Motoda, H. (1997). Discovering admissible models of complex systems based on scale-types and identity constraints. In Proceedings of the fifteenth international joint conference on artificial intel- ligence (IJCAI 1997), pp. 810-819.
  74. Wilczek, F., & Devine, B. (2006). Fantastic realities: 49 Mind journeys and a trip to stockholm. Singapore: World Scientific.
  75. Xiang, J., & Kim, S. (2013). A* Lasso for learning a sparse Bayesian network structure for continuous vari- ables. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 26, 1466-1474.
  76. Xu, Y., Liu, Y., & Sun, H. (2024). Reinforcement symbolic regression machine. In International conference on learning representations, ICLR.
  77. Ying, C., Cai, T., Luo, S., Zheng, S., Ke, G., He, D., Shen, Y., & Liu, T.-Y. (2021). Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? In Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34. : / / p
  78. Yu, Y., Chen, J., Gao, T., & Yu, M. (2019). DAG-GNN: DAG structure learning with graph neural net- works. In Proceedings of the 36th international conference on machine learning (ICML). Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 7154-7163.
  79. Zheng, X., Dan, C., Aragam, B., Ravikumar, P., & Xing, E.P. (2020). Learning sparse nonparametric DAGs. In S. Chiappa, R. Calandra, (Eds.) The 23rd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, AISTATS 2020, 26-28 August 2020, Online [Palermo, Sicily, Italy]. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 108, pp. 3414-3425.
  80. Zheng, X., Aragam, B., Ravikumar, P. K., & Xing, E. P. (2018). DAGs with no tears: Continuous optimization for structure learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 31, 9472-9483.
  81. Zheng, Y., Huang, B., Chen, W., Ramsey, J., Gong, M., Cai, R., Shimizu, S., Spirtes, P., & Zhang, K. (2024). Causal-learn: Causal discovery in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(60), 1-8.
  82. Zhong, L., Zhong, J., & Lu, C. (2021). A comparative analysis of dimensionality reduction methods for genetic programming to solve high-dimensional symbolic regression problems. In 2021 IEEE interna- tional conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), pp. 476-483. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / S M C 5 2 4 2 3 . 2 0 2 1 . 9 6 5 8 5 · DOI
  83. Zhu, S., Ng, I., & Chen, Z. (2020). Causal discovery with reinforcement learning. In International conference on learning representations (ICLR). https://openreview.net/forum?id=S1g2skStPB
  84. Zytkow, J.M., Zhu, J., & Hussam, A. (1990). Automated discovery in a chemistry laboratory. In Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 1990), pp. 889-894. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Washington, DC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kramer, S., Cerrato, M., Brugger, J., Džeroski, S., & King, R.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
  • Jožef Stefan Institute (SI)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
115
Issue
5
ISSN
0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2305.02251
arXiv
2305.02251
OpenAlex
W4368755578
Cited by
10
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
9.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Machine Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R022925/2, EP/W004801/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
automated scientific discovery, equation discovery, symbolic regression, autonomous agents, deep neural network, autonomy levels, autonomous driving, AI scientists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review