ArticleIEEE transactions on evolutionary computation : a publication of the IEEE Neural Networks Council2025
SRBench++ : principled benchmarking of symbolic regression with domain-expert interpretation.
Article in IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation : a publication of the IEEE Neural Networks Council, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Symbolically Regressing Fish Biomass Spectral Data: A Linear Genetic Programming Method With Tunable Primitives.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Article
- Data-driven discovery of digital twins in biomedical research.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Symbolic regression searches for analytic expressions that accurately describe studied phenomena. The main promise of this approach is that it may return an interpretable model that can be insightful to users, while maintaining high accuracy. The current standard for benchmarking these algorithms is SRBench, which evaluates methods on hundreds of datasets that are a mix of real-world and simulated processes spanning multiple domains. At present, the ability of SRBench to evaluate interpretability is limited to measuring the size of expressions on real-world data, and the exactness of model forms on synthetic data. In practice, model size is only one of many factors used by subject experts to determine how interpretable a model truly is. Furthermore, SRBench does not characterize algorithm performance on specific, challenging sub-tasks of regression such as feature selection and evasion of local minima. In this work, we propose and evaluate an approach to benchmarking SR algorithms that addresses these limitations of SRBench by 1) incorporating expert evaluations of interpretability on a domain-specific task, and 2) evaluating algorithms over distinct properties of data science tasks. We evaluate 12 modern symbolic regression algorithms on these benchmarks and present an in-depth analysis of the results, discuss current challenges of symbolic regression algorithms and highlight possible improvements for the benchmark itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.