Organizations: Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo, China · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China · Imperial College London, London, England · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Symbolic regression (SR) solvers employ diverse search mechanisms, yet most rely on the same low-information scalar fitness. Such scores provide little guidance on why a skeleton fails or how it should be revised. Recent methods develop new methods to address this bottleneck. Their enhanced feedback mechanisms are tightly coupled to their search processes and are difficult to reuse across diverse SR solvers. Instead, we ask whether a shared feedback mechanism can further improve diverse solvers facing the same bottleneck. To this end, we propose PostDiag, a search-independent feedback mechanism, which can be shared to different SR solvers. PostDiag introduces Patch-wise Feature Profiling (PFP) to capture local behavior through patch-wise features of level, trend, and roughness. Based on PFP, PostDiag quantifies Skeleton Expressiveness Risk by comparing the fitted candidate with the observations, and Skeleton Stability Risk by measuring variability of behavior after bootstrap refitting. The Diagnostic Risk Plane (DRP) combines two risks to determine whether a skeleton should be preserved, repaired, simplified, or rewritten, while the patch-wise discrepancies provide evidence for the intervention. An LLM editor then performs the diagnosis-guided intervention, and the validated revision is returned to the original solver through a lightweight adapter. Experiments across multiple LLM-based and GP-based SR solvers show that PostDiag consistently improves accuracy and accelerates convergence.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of PostDiag , a search-independent post-diagnosis pipeline for symbolic regression. Given a candidate skeleton s produced by LLM-based or GP-based SR solver, PostDiag first examines its local behavior via patchwise feature profiling, then reports the diagnostic report (evidence map), and diagnoses the failure type on the diagnostic risk plane, and finally calls a conditional LLM intervention , yielding a diagnosis-driven modification s~ that is returned to the solver.
Category
Method / setting
Overall
Phys
MatSci
Chem
Bio
Time (s)
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
LLM-based
Direct LLM
30.5
7.72E-02
2.6
0.8
7.32E-02
3.0
0.8
6.24E-02
2.7
1.3
3.50E-02
2.8
0.9
1.63E-01
1.4
0.0
Direct LLM+PostDiag
33.7
3.23E-02
4.4
2.3
5.22E-02
5.3
3.8
4.34E-03
4.0
2.7
8.76E-03
3.7
0.9
6.03E-02
4.2
1.4
SGA
320.0
1.39E-02
11.9
5.9
9.43E-03
8.3
6.1
8.21E-03
12.0
5.3
4.92E-03
19.4
7.4
4.15E-02
6.9
4.2
SGA+PostDiag
350.2
2.40E-03
18.6
9.8
2.66E-03
14.4
9.8
1.87E-04
25.3
6.7
8.65E-04
24.1
13.0
6.52E-03
11.1
8.3
LLM-SR
167.5
1.45E-03
22.0
8.8
3.66E-03
14.4
8.3
3.12E-05
37.3
13.3
1.75E-04
27.8
8.3
8.15E-04
11.1
5.6
Table 1: ID performance of base solvers and their PostDiag-enhanced variants on LSR-Synth. We report accuracy to tolerance, NMSE and runtime (the mean end-to-end wall-clock seconds per task run, including both SR base solver and PostDiag overhead) over all 129 tasks. All metrics are aggregated over three seeds. Aτ abbreviates Accτ .
Figure 2: (a) Diagnostic fidelity of PostDiag. PFP-derived bias and variance scores map synthesis skeletons to distinct DRP regions, separating settled, underfit, overfit, and mismatched cases. (b) Component ablation across four base SR solvers. Each point reports pooled Acc0.01 over 129 LSR-Synth tasks and three seeds. Full PostDiag performs best by combining DRP localization with evidence-guided intervention.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Backbone/category
Method
Overall
Phys
MatSci
Chem
Bio
Qwen3.5-27B
LLM-based
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b )
1.0
0.8
2.7
0.9
0.0
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b ) +PostDiag
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.8
1.4
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 )
9.6
6.1
9.3
16.7
5.6
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 ) +PostDiag
16.3
12.9
21.3
21.3
9.7
LLM-SR
21.2
12.9
41.3
26.9
6.9
Appendix
Table 2: Low-budget OOD Acc0.01 on LSR-Synth. Following the SR-Scientist protocol, only Acc0.01 is reported for OOD evaluation. Each LLM-based method is paired with its PostDiag variant under the same backbone. Overall is pooled over all 129 tasks; OOD samples are used only for post-hoc evaluation.
Method / setting
Overall
Phys
MatSci
Chem
Bio
Time (s)
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b )
35.3
4.62E-02
2.8
1.3
3.82E-02
3.0
0.8
5.78E-02
2.7
1.3
2.26E-02
3.7
1.9
8.42E-02
1.4
1.4
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b ) +PostDiag
39.3
9.54E-03
5.4
3.4
8.64E-03
6.1
3.8
2.86E-03
5.3
4.0
6.43E-03
4.6
2.8
2.28E-02
5.6
2.8
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 )
368.0
8.44E-03
14.7
8.8
5.88E-03
12.1
7.6
6.17E-03
13.3
8.0
5.10E-03
22.2
13.0
2.05E-02
9.7
5.6
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 ) +PostDiag
406.2
1.44E-03
22.7
12.7
1.52E-03
20.5
12.9
2.06E-04
25.3
10.7
7.32E-04
28.7
15.7
3.66E-03
15.3
9.7
LLM-SR
201.1
9.68E-04
27.6
12.7
2.41E-03
21.2
9.8
1.91E-05
50.7
26.7
1.18E-04
27.8
9.3
5.86E-04
15.3
8.3
Appendix
Table 3: Low-budget ID results on LSR-Synth for LLM-based solvers using Qwen3.5-122B-A10B. Metrics and aggregation follow Table 1 . Each method is paired with its PostDiag variant under the same backbone and three-seed protocol.
Base solver
Backbone
Base SA
+PostDiag SA
Δ SA
Direct LLM
Qwen3.5-27B
1.55
1.55
0.00
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
2.07
2.58
+0.52
SGA
Qwen3.5-27B
3.62
4.65
+1.03
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
3.88
5.17
+1.29
LLM-SR
Qwen3.5-27B
3.88
5.68
+1.81
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
4.39
6.46
+2.07
Appendix
Table 4: Symbolic accuracy (SA) on LSR-Synth. We follow the LLM-SRBench definition and expression preprocessing, together with the SR-Scientist repeated-vote adjudication protocol. Results pool all 129 tasks over three seeds; failed or invalid runs count as incorrect. PostDiag interventions for GP solvers use Qwen3.5-27B. Boldface marks the better value within each base/PostDiag pair.
Method / setting
Overall
Phys
MatSci
Chem
Bio
Time (s)
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b )
30.5
7.72E-02
2.6
0.8
7.32E-02
3.0
0.8
6.24E-02
2.7
1.3
3.50E-02
2.8
0.9
1.63E-01
1.4
0.0
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b ) +PostDiag
33.7
3.23E-02
4.4
2.3
5.22E-02
5.3
3.8
4.34E-03
4.0
2.7
8.76E-03
3.7
0.9
6.03E-02
4.2
1.4
Direct LLM / High
45.5
5.78E-02
3.4
1.8
5.86E-02
3.0
1.5
3.98E-02
5.3
2.7
2.80E-02
3.7
1.9
1.20E-01
1.4
1.4
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 )
320.0
1.39E-02
11.9
5.9
9.43E-03
8.3
6.1
8.21E-03
12.0
5.3
4.92E-03
19.4
7.4
4.15E-02
6.9
4.2
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 ) +PostDiag
350.2
2.40E-03
18.6
9.8
2.66E-03
14.4
9.8
1.87E-04
25.3
6.7
8.65E-04
24.1
13.0
6.52E-03
11.1
8.3
Appendix
Table 5: Budget-efficiency comparison for LLM-based solvers using Qwen3.5-27B. Each method is paired with its PostDiag variant. Low+PostDiag retains the corresponding Low base-solver budget, while High uses the full-budget reference setting. Boldface marks the best value within each solver block; runtime is reported without ranking.
Method / setting
Overall
Phys
MatSci
Chem
Bio
Time (s)
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b )
35.3
4.62E-02
2.8
1.3
3.82E-02
3.0
0.8
5.78E-02
2.7
1.3
2.26E-02
3.7
1.9
8.42E-02
1.4
1.4
Direct LLM ( Shojaee et al., 2025b ) +PostDiag
39.3
9.54E-03
5.4
3.4
8.64E-03
6.1
3.8
2.86E-03
5.3
4.0
6.43E-03
4.6
2.8
2.28E-02
5.6
2.8
Direct LLM / High
52.7
1.55E-03
3.9
2.1
3.86E-03
3.0
2.3
3.06E-05
6.7
2.7
1.89E-04
3.7
1.9
9.36E-04
2.8
1.4
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 )
368.0
8.44E-03
14.7
8.8
5.88E-03
12.1
7.6
6.17E-03
13.3
8.0
5.10E-03
22.2
13.0
2.05E-02
9.7
5.6
SGA ( Ma et al., 2024 ) +PostDiag
406.2
1.44E-03
22.7
12.7
1.52E-03
20.5
12.9
2.06E-04
25.3
10.7
7.32E-04
28.7
15.7
3.66E-03
15.3
9.7
Appendix
Table 6: Budget-efficiency comparison for LLM-based solvers using Qwen3.5-122B-A10B. Each method is paired with its PostDiag variant. Low+PostDiag retains the corresponding Low base-solver budget, while High uses the full-budget reference setting. Boldface marks the best value within each solver block; runtime is reported without ranking.
Method / setting
Overall
Phys
MatSci
Chem
Bio
Time (s)
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
NMSE
A.01
A.001
PySR / Low
8.8
2.67E-03
23.8
11.4
4.11E-03
21.2
12.1
1.70E-04
44.0
18.7
8.93E-04
20.4
10.2
5.29E-03
12.5
4.2
PySR+PD / Low
10.5
1.34E-03
28.7
13.2
1.82E-03
24.2
14.4
2.25E-04
50.7
17.3
5.29E-04
25.9
12.0
2.84E-03
18.1
8.3
PySR / High
15.5
1.76E-03
28.4
13.7
2.61E-03
25.8
15.2
8.12E-05
49.3
20.0
6.18E-04
25.0
12.0
3.66E-03
16.7
6.9
gplearn / Low
95.5
1.34E-01
0.0
0.0
8.51E-02
0.0
0.0
2.36E-02
0.0
0.0
6.56E-02
0.0
0.0
4.42E-01
0.0
0.0
gplearn+PD / Low
101.7
3.07E-02
1.0
0.0
4.29E-03
2.3
0.0
6.91E-03
0.0
0.0
4.29E-02
0.9
0.0
8.58E-02
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 7: Budget-efficiency comparison for GP-based solvers. Their native search does not use an LLM; all PostDiag interventions use Qwen3.5-27B. Low+PostDiag retains the corresponding Low base-solver budget, while High uses the full-budget reference setting. Boldface marks the best value within each solver block; runtime is reported without ranking.
Symbolic regression (SR) seeks to discover mathematical expressions directly from data, without requiring task-specific scientific descriptions. Despite tremendous progress in both conventional search-based methods and recent LLM-based methods, two critical limitations largely remain. First (Limited Generation Flexibility), conventional search-based methods rely on either fixed search rules or specialized learned generators, severely limiting adaptive candidate generation across diverse expression structures. Second (Underutilized Search Discoveries), most LLM-based methods cannot reliably recover ground-truth expressions because they fall short in effectively leveraging the LLM itself to thoroughly digest past expressions or adaptively guide future search. To address these limitations, we propose DIGEST. To render greater flexibility in generation, DIGEST repurposes a pretrained decoder block from a lightweight LLM into a symbolic policy for Genetic Programming (GP) population seeding, thereby leveraging the broader modeling capacity of the LLM. To more thoroughly utilize search discoveries, high-quality expressions discovered by GP are fed back to update the LLM-derived policy online, thereby enabling the LLM to progressively internalize past search discoveries and translate them into improved subsequent population generation. Experiments show that on two ground-truth benchmarks, DIGEST outperforms the strongest competitor by up to 2.59% in recovery. Among LLM-based baselines, it improves recovery by at least 54.91% while using at most 17.4% of the strongest competitor's mean search time. On 122 BlackBox datasets, DIGEST achieves the highest accuracy while maintaining a moderate model complexity.
Symbolic regression (SR) seeks to discover parsimonious mathematical laws from observational data, yet conventional approaches often struggle with the vast combinatorial search space of physically meaningful expressions. We present InsightSR, a framework that embeds Large Language Models (LLMs) as a guiding layer around the PySR genetic programming engine. Rather than relying on LLMs to generate expressions directly, InsightSR uses LLMs to progressively transform the search space itself through two complementary pathways: a Semantic Seed Pathway that proposes dimensionally consistent functional skeletons, and a Structural Feature Pathway that recommends nonlinear feature transformations. These transformations accumulate over iterations, broadening the input space and shifting the symbolic search from constructing deep expression trees over raw variables to assembling shallow trees over a rich, semantically informed feature set. A post-generation feedback loop evaluates candidates, categorizes features by their empirical utility, and refines the guidance for the next iteration, transforming the discovery process from open-ended generation into iterative, self-correcting refinement. Across three benchmarks, InsightSR achieves a 95% exact recovery rate on the Feynman benchmark and 80.18% accuracy on the LLM-SRBench LSR-Transform task, substantially outperforming state-of-the-art genetic programming and neural-symbolic methods while maintaining strong out-of-distribution generalization on real-world datasets.
Symbolic regression searches for an equation that explains observed data. Numerical error is commonly used to guide the search, but it alone can favor an accurate surrogate over a candidate with the right structure. We propose L2G-SR, a framework for LLM-based symbolic regression that guides search with a learned structural verifier. We construct structural supervision signal using tree edit distance (TED), accounting for commutative operators and alternative expression forms. A verifier first aligns numerical observations with the formulas, then learns to score a candidate's structural similarity to the target formula. At search time, the target formula is hidden and the verifier complements numerical error in parent selection. An analyst then uses verifier feedback and diagnostic tools to propose revisions, which a generator converts into refined expressions. On LLM-SRBench, L2G-SR achieves state-of-the-art numerical fit, equation level accuracy and TED across the evaluated LLM backbones and domains. L2G-SR demonstrates the value of learned structural guidance for LLM-based symbolic regression.