Knowledge-aware equation discovery with automated background knowledge extraction

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2501.00444
• Title: Knowledge-aware equation discovery with automated background knowledge extraction
• Authors: Elizaveta Ivanchik, Alexander Hvatov (ITMO University)
• Category: cs.AI
• Publication Date: January 3, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00444

Abstract

In differential equation discovery algorithms, prior expert knowledge is primarily used implicitly to constrain the form of desired equations, preventing algorithms from truly discovering equations. Instead, most differential equation discovery algorithms attempt to recover coefficients of known structures. This paper describes an algorithm that enables the discovery of unknown equations using automatically or manually extracted background knowledge. Rather than imposing rigid constraints, the algorithm modifies the structure space to make certain terms more likely to appear in crossover and mutation operators. In this manner, the algorithm simulates expert term selection while preserving the possibility of obtaining any equation form. Experiments demonstrate that knowledge extraction and utilization make it superior to the SINDy algorithm in terms of search stability and robustness.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

Differential equation discovery is an important task for extracting interpretable physical models from observational data. Current differential equation discovery methods face the following challenges:

1. Over-reliance on Prior Knowledge: Existing methods such as SINDy primarily constrain equation form through predefined term libraries, essentially performing coefficient recovery rather than true equation discovery
2. Structure Space Limitations: Gradient-based optimization methods can only search within fixed structure spaces, limiting the ability to discover novel equations
3. Rigid Knowledge Utilization: Existing methods either completely avoid using background knowledge or impose overly strict structural constraints

Research Motivation

The core motivation of this paper is to develop a differential equation discovery algorithm that can:

• Automatically extract and utilize background knowledge
• Guide the search process while maintaining structural flexibility
• Improve the stability and robustness of equation discovery

Core Contributions

1. Proposed a Knowledge-Aware Equation Discovery Framework: Developed an improved EPDE-based algorithm that leverages background knowledge by modifying probability distributions rather than imposing hard constraints
2. Designed an Automated Knowledge Extraction Mechanism: Automatically generates initial guesses based on an improved SymNet architecture and converts them into term importance distributions
3. Implemented Soft Knowledge Guidance: Modifies the probability distributions of crossover and mutation operators to guide the optimization process while maintaining the integrity of the search space
4. Validated Method Effectiveness: Experiments on Burgers equation, wave equation, and KdV equation demonstrate that the method outperforms SINDy in stability and robustness

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Given observational data $X = \{x^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^N$ on a discrete grid and corresponding observations $U = \{u^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^N$, the goal is to discover a differential equation model describing the data:

$M(S, P, x) \rightarrow u(x) : M(S, P, x^{(i)}) \rightarrow u(x_i) \sim u^{(i)}$

where $S$ denotes structure and $P$ denotes parameters.

Model Architecture

1. Baseline EPDE Algorithm

The EPDE algorithm uses parameterized tokens as basic building blocks: $t = t(\pi_1, ..., \pi_n)$

Tokens combine to form terms: $T = t_1 \cdot ... \cdot t_{T_{length}}$, with model form: $M(S, \{C,P\}) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{terms}} C_j T_j$

2. Knowledge-Aware Improvements

The key innovation involves introducing term importance distributions to guide evolutionary operators:

Improved Crossover Operator: Selects terms participating in crossover according to term importance distribution rather than uniform selection.

Improved Mutation Operator:

• Token replacement: Selects new tokens according to importance distribution
• Term generation: Generates new terms using importance distribution

3. Automated Knowledge Extraction

Generates initial guesses using an improved SymNet architecture:

SymNet Modifications: Extends the original architecture to support arbitrary temporal derivative forms: $U_t = F(t, x, U, U_x, U_{xx}, U_{tt}, U_{ttt}, ...)$$U_{tt} = F(t, x, U, U_x, U_t, U_{xx}, U_{ttt}, ...)$

Probability Distribution Computation:

1. Maps SymNet output to EPDE term space
2. Applies coefficient smoothing (mixing factor mf controls this)
3. Normalizes to obtain probability distribution

Technical Innovations

1. Soft Constraint Mechanism: Introduces background knowledge through probability distributions rather than hard constraints, preserving search space completeness
2. Adaptive Knowledge Extraction: Automatically extracts term importance from initial guesses without manual definition
3. Mixing Factor Adjustment: Balances the credibility of initial guesses through mixing factor to prevent over-reliance on inaccurate guesses

Experimental Setup

Datasets

Experiments use five classical partial differential equations:

1. Burgers Equation (Inviscid): $u_t + uu_x = 0$
2. Burgers Equation (Viscous): $u_t + uu_x - 0.1u_{xx} = 0$
3. Wave Equation: $u_{tt} - \frac{1}{25}u_{xx} = 0$
4. KdV Equation: $u_t + 6uu_x + u_{xxx} = 0$
5. Inhomogeneous KdV Equation: $u_t + 6uu_x + u_{xxx} = \cos t \sin x$

Evaluation Metrics

1. Mean Absolute Error (MAE): Computes error between discovered and true equation coefficients
2. Structural Hamming Distance (SHD): Measures difference between discovered and true equation structures
3. Success Rate: Proportion of successful equation discoveries among 50 runs
4. Convergence Time: Time required for algorithm to reach convergence

Comparison Methods

• Classical EPDE Algorithm: Serves as baseline method
• PySINDy Framework: Current mainstream differential equation discovery method
• SymNet: Used to evaluate initial guess quality

Implementation Details

• Each experiment runs 50 times for statistical results
• Noise levels: 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% (relative to limit noise level)
• Mixing factor: Default value 2.4, with optimization via KL divergence also tested

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Comparison with SINDy

Experiments on multiple equations demonstrate:

• Improved Stability: The improved algorithm shows more stable performance under high-noise conditions
• Accuracy Advantages: Achieves lower MAE in most cases
• Enhanced Robustness: Performance degrades more slowly as noise increases

2. Success Rate Improvement

According to results in Tables A.3 and A.4:

• Complex Equations: Most significant success rate improvement for inhomogeneous KdV equation, reaching up to 72%
• Simple Equations: Limited improvement for simple equations already achieving high success rates
• Average Improvement: Average noise robustness improvement of 12.5%, ranging from 2% to 32%

3. Time Consumption

• Classical EPDE: Approximately 5 seconds
• Improved Algorithm: Approximately 15 seconds
• PySINDy: Approximately 0.01 seconds

Ablation Studies

Mixing Factor Sensitivity Analysis

Tests impact of different mixing factors (2.4, 3.0, 3.6, 4.5):

• Mixing factors optimized via KL divergence typically perform best
• Appropriate mixing factor adjustment can provide additional 30% improvement in discovery rate

SymNet Initial Guess Quality

SymNet performance varies significantly across equations:

• Simple Equations: Burgers equation MAE = 0.0058 ± 0.0008
• Complex Equations: Inhomogeneous KdV equation MAE = 0.1497 ± 0.0214

Case Analysis

Using the wave equation as an example, the improved algorithm can discover second-order temporal derivative equations that PySINDy cannot handle, demonstrating the structural flexibility of the method.

Related Work

Classification of Equation Discovery Methods

The paper categorizes existing methods into two types:

1. Type I (Gradient Optimization): Fixed structure, optimized parameters (e.g., SINDy, PDE-Net)
2. Type II (Genetic Programming): Simultaneous optimization of structure and parameters (e.g., EPDE, PySR)

Knowledge Integration Approaches

• Syntactic Rules: Expert-defined syntactic constraints
• Bayesian Methods: Knowledge integration based on prior distributions
• Structural Constraints: Hard constraints from predefined term libraries

This paper's method represents an improvement to Type II through soft knowledge guidance via probability distributions.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Soft Constraints are Effective: Introducing background knowledge through probability distributions proves more effective than hard constraints
2. Automated Knowledge Extraction is Feasible: The automated knowledge extraction mechanism based on SymNet improves search performance
3. Complex Equations Benefit More: The method shows more significant improvements for complex differential equations

Limitations

1. Computational Overhead: Computation time significantly increases compared to SINDy
2. Initial Guess Dependency: Method performance is affected by SymNet initial guess quality
3. Parameter Sensitivity: Key parameters such as mixing factor require careful tuning

Future Directions

1. Optimize Computational Efficiency: Reduce SymNet invocations and improve overall efficiency
2. Improve Initial Guesses: Develop more accurate initial equation guess methods
3. Expand Application Domains: Test method effectiveness on more equation types

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Innovative Knowledge Integration Mechanism: Proposes a novel approach to leverage background knowledge through probability distribution modification rather than hard constraints
2. Complete Automated Pipeline: End-to-end automation from knowledge extraction to equation discovery
3. Comprehensive Experimental Validation: Thorough testing on multiple classical equations, including noise robustness analysis
4. Solid Theoretical Foundation: Explains method rationality from the perspective of probability measure geometry

Weaknesses

1. Computational Efficiency Issues: Significant computational overhead compared to existing methods, limiting practical applications
2. Method Complexity: Involves multiple components (SymNet, EPDE, probability distribution computation), increasing implementation difficulty
3. Parameter Tuning Requirements: Key parameters such as mixing factor require problem-specific adjustment
4. Limited Theoretical Analysis: Lacks theoretical guarantees for convergence and optimality

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides a new paradigm for knowledge integration in differential equation discovery
2. Practical Value: Demonstrates advantages in handling complex, high-noise data
3. Reproducibility: Provides open-source code and detailed experimental settings

Applicable Scenarios

This method is particularly suitable for:

• Complex differential equation discovery tasks
• Equation recovery in high-noise environments
• Applications requiring structural flexibility
• Situations with partial prior knowledge but uncertain complete structure

References

The paper cites major works in the differential equation discovery field, including:

• SINDy series methods 8, 10, 26, 28
• PDE-Net series 12, 32
• EPDE algorithm 14, 25, 30, 31
• Symbolic regression methods 15, 29
• Knowledge extraction related work 1-6, 16-24

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality research paper that proposes an innovative knowledge-aware differential equation discovery method. While it has limitations in computational efficiency, it demonstrates excellent performance in methodological innovation, experimental completeness, and practical effectiveness, making a valuable contribution to the field's development.