Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Φ-SO : Physical Symbolic Optimization - Learning Physics from Data 🧠 The Physical Symbolic Optimization package uses deep reinforcement learning to discover physical laws from data. Here is Φ-SO discovering the analytical expression of a damped harmonic oscillator.

433,240 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

9 Comments

Jousef Murad's profile picture
Jousef Murad2 years ago

🌎 Repo:  👉 Paper: 

Luke Barnes's profile picture
Luke Barnes2 years ago

This isn't physics. It's curve fitting. If you want to do physics, start by having the code discover the underlying differential equation. Handy, though.

Rasmus Nordström's profile picture
Rasmus Nordström2 years ago

ELI5 please, is this just brute forcing different formulas to see what fits that data or is it more magic to it?

Moritz Zaiss's profile picture
Moritz Zaiss2 years ago

Nice, I love these approaches! A differentiable physicist that doesn't need coffee. Check out the work of @GMartius in this context!

Jiwoong Lee's profile picture
Jiwoong Lee2 years ago

Would it be more straightforward to optimize in frequency domain? Curious.

Luis Tobon's profile picture
Luis Tobon2 years ago

Try Sindy.

Wassim Tenachi's profile picture
Wassim Tenachi2 years ago

Thanks for sharing my work, glad to see people excited about this ! 😊

Unser Kampf : notre combat's profile picture
Unser Kampf : notre combat2 years ago

How many points are tested ? 4k+1 ?

Unser Kampf : notre combat's profile picture
Unser Kampf : notre combat2 years ago

Il like very much. Your works completes mine.

Related Videos

The Machine That Learns The Law Behind The Data A very very interesting US Patent US10963540B2 - Physics Informed Learning Machine describes a learning system that does not begin with data alone. It begins with a physical model, usually written as a differential equation (or PDE) dx/dt = f(x,t) A normal Machine Learning model sees scattered data and tries to fit it. A physics-informed learning machine starts with a law. Then it treats the data as evidence that updates what the model believes about the physical system. For this application, I use the patent idea on NASA C-MAPSS Turbofan engine data. The machine watches multivariate telemetry from a degrading engine and infers a hidden health state that is not measured directly. From that posterior belief, it estimates the engine’s remaining useful life. In the main 3D scene, the engine lifetime is turned into a tunnel. The spiral ribbons are real sensor channels evolving over cycle-time. The glowing core is the inferred health state. The surrounding cloud is uncertainty. The orange wall ahead is the predicted failure horizon. So the big picture is: sensor evidence comes in, posterior belief tightens, and the machine moves from uncertainty toward a concrete failure prediction. The inset posteriors make that explicit. The health posterior shows where the model believes the hidden engine condition sits at the current moment, and how sharply it believes it. The RUL posterior shows the same idea for remaining life... early on it is broad, later it shifts left and narrows as the machine becomes more certain about how close failure is. This idea is not limited to engines. The same idea can apply to data centers, CPUs, GPUs, cooling systems, power grids, robotics, batteries, and any machine that produces telemetry while obeying physical constraints. In an age where machine learning runs on massive hardware infrastructure, this kind of model matters: it can turn noisy sensor streams into early warnings before expensive systems fail.

Mathelirium

17,843 views • 4 months ago