Machine-guided discovery of a real-world rogue wave model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Big data and large-scale machine learning have had a profound impact on science and engineering, particularly in fields focused on forecasting and prediction. Yet, it is still not clear how we can use the superior pattern-matching abilities of machine learning models for scientific discovery. This is because the goals of machine learning and science are generally not aligned. In addition to being accurate, scientific theories must also be causally consistent with the underlying physical process and allow for human analysis, reasoning, and manipulation to advance the field. In this paper, we present a case study on discovering a symbolic model for oceanic rogue waves from data using causal analysis, deep learning, parsimony-guided model selection, and symbolic regression. We train an artificial neural network on causal features from an extensive dataset of observations from wave buoys, while selecting for predictive performance and causal invariance. We apply symbolic regression to distill this black-box model into a mathematical equation that retains the neural network's predictive capabilities, while allowing for interpretation in the context of existing wave theory. The resulting model reproduces known behavior, generates well-calibrated probabilities, and achieves better predictive scores on unseen data than current theory. This showcases how machine learning can facilitate inductive scientific discovery and paves the way for more accurate rogue wave forecasting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".