- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

ADAM-SINDy: An efficient optimization framework for parameterized nonlinear dynamical system identification

Siva Viknesh1,2, Younes Tatari1,2, Chase Christenson2, and Amirhossein Arzani1,2,*

  • *Contact author: amir.arzani@sci.utah.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013040 – Published 15 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/dwkk-5g2h

Abstract

Identifying nonlinear dynamical systems characterized by nonlinear parameters presents significant challenges in deriving mathematical models that enhance understanding of physical phenomena. Traditional methods, such as Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics (SINDy) and symbolic regression, can extract governing equations from observational data; however, they also come with distinct advantages and disadvantages. This paper introduces a differentiable optimization methodology within the SINDy framework, termed ADAM-SINDy, which synthesizes the strengths of established approaches by employing the ADAM optimization algorithm. This integration facilitates the simultaneous optimization of nonlinear parameters and coefficients associated with nonlinear candidate functions, enabling efficient and precise parameter estimation without requiring prior knowledge of nonlinear characteristics such as trigonometric frequencies, exponential bandwidths, or polynomial exponents, thereby addressing a key limitation of the classical SINDy framework. Through an integrated global differentiable optimization, ADAM-SINDy dynamically computes all unknown variables in response to system-specific data, resulting in a more adaptive and efficient identification procedure that reduces the sensitivity to the library of candidate functions. The performance of the ADAM-SINDy methodology is demonstrated across a spectrum of dynamical systems, including benchmark coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations such as oscillators, chaotic fluid flows, reaction kinetics, pharmacokinetics, as well as nonlinear partial differential equations (wildfire transport). The results demonstrate significant improvements in identifying parameterized dynamical systems and underscore the importance of concurrently optimizing all parameters, particularly those characterized by nonlinear parameters. These findings highlight the potential of ADAM-SINDy to extend the applicability of the SINDy framework in addressing more complex challenges in dynamical system identification.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (82)

  1. L. Ljung, Perspectives on system identification, Annu. Rev. Control 34, 1 (2010).
  2. P. O. Van and B. M. De, Subspace Identification for Linear Systems: Theory—Implementation—Applications (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, USA, 2012).
  3. O. Nelles, Nonlinear Dynamic System Identification (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2020).
  4. F. Lauer and G. Bloch, Hybrid System Identification: Theory and Algorithms for Learning Switching Models (Springer, Switzerland AG, 2018), Vol. 478.
  5. P. F. Pai and A. N. Palazotto, HHT-based nonlinear signal processing method for parametric and non-parametric identification of dynamical systems, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 50, 1619 (2008).
  6. S. N. Kumpati and P. Kannan, Identification and control of dynamical systems using neural networks, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 1, 4 (1990).
  7. J. A. K. Suykens, J. P. L. Vandewalle, and B. L. M. De, Artificial Neural Networks for Modeling and Control of Non-linear Systems (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, USA, 2012).
  8. A. C. Gondhalekar, E. P. Petrov, and M. Imregun, Parameters identification for nonlinear dynamic systems via genetic algorithm optimization, J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 4, 041002 (2009).
  9. M. Quade, M. Abel, K. Shafi, R. K. Niven, and B. R. Noack, Prediction of dynamical systems by symbolic regression, Phys. Rev. E 94, 012214 (2016).
  10. G.-J. Both, S. Choudhury, P. Sens, and R. Kusters, DeepMoD: Deep learning for model discovery  in noisy data, J. Comput. Phys. 428, 109985 (2021).
  11. A. Okunev, E. Burnaev, and J. Wang, Ordinary differential equation identification based on sparse Bayesian learning and collaborative neurodynamic optimization, in 2021 6th International Conference on Communication, Image and Signal Processing (CCISP) (IEEE, Chengdu, China, 2021), pp. 75–79.
  12. A. Okunev and E. Burnaev, Nonlinear system identification via sparse Bayesian regression based on collaborative neurodynamic optimization, J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 32, 1161 (2024).
  13. R. Stephany and C. Earls, PDE-READ: Human-readable partial differential equation discovery using deep learning, Neural Networks 154, 360 (2022).
  14. P. Rajendra and V. Brahmajirao, Modeling of dynamical systems through deep learning, Biophys. Rev. 12, 1311 (2020).
  15. W. Samek, G. Montavon, S. Lapuschkin, C. J. Anders, and K. R. Müller, Explaining deep neural networks and beyond: A review of methods and applications, Proc. IEEE 109, 247 (2021).
  16. A. Thampi, Interpretable AI: Building Explainable Machine Learning Systems (Simon and Schuster, Shelter Island, NY, 2022).
  17. X. Zhong, B. Gallagher, S. Liu, B. Kailkhura, A. Hiszpanski, and T. Y. J. Han, Explainable machine learning in materials science, npj Comput. Mater. 8, 204 (2022).
  18. J. R. Koza, Genetic programming as a means for programming computers by natural selection, Stat. Comput. 4, 87 (1994).
  19. J. Bongard and H. Lipson, Automated reverse engineering of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 9943 (2007).
  20. M. Schmidt and H. Lipson, Symbolic regression of implicit equations, in Genetic Programming Theory and Practice VII (Springer, New York, USA, 2009), pp. 73–85.
  21. G. Dick, Bloat and generalisation in symbolic regression, in Asia-Pacific Conference on Simulated Evolution and Learning, edited by G. Dick, W. N. Browne, P. Whigham, M. Zhang, L. T. Bui, H. Ishibuchi, Y. Jin, X. Li, Y. Shi, P. Singh, K. C. Tan, and K. Tang (Springer, Switzerland, 2014), pp. 491–502.
  22. M. Castelli, L. Trujillo, L. Vanneschi, S. Silva, E. Z-Flores, and P. Legrand, Geometric semantic genetic programming with local search, in Proceedings of the 2015 annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, edited by S. Silva (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, United States, Madrid, Spain, 2015), pp. 999–1006.
  23. Q. U. Nguyen and T. H. Chu, Semantic approximation for reducing code bloat in genetic programming, Swarm Evol. Comput. 58, 100729 (2020).
  24. L. F. dal Piccol Sotto and V. V. de Melo, Studying bloat control and maintenance of effective code in linear genetic programming for symbolic regression, Neurocomputing 180, 79 (2016).
  25. S. Razavi and E. R. Gamazon, Neural-network-directed genetic programmer for discovery of governing equations, arXiv:2203.08808.
  26. T. Sauer, J. A. Yorke, and M. Casdagli, Embedology, J. Stat. Phys. 65, 579 (1991).
  27. F. Takens, Detecting strange attractors in turbulence, in Dynamical Systems and Turbulence, Warwick 1980: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the University of Warwick 1979/80, edited by D. R. and L.-S. Young (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006), pp. 366–381.
  28. J. B. Tenenbaum, V. D. Silva, and J. C. Langford, A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction, Science 290, 2319 (2000).
  29. A. Singer, R. Erban, I. G. Kevrekidis, and R. R. Coifman, Detecting intrinsic slow variables in stochastic dynamical systems by anisotropic diffusion maps, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16090 (2009).
  30. S. T. Roweis and L. K. Saul, Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding, Science 290, 2323 (2000).
  31. T. McConaghy, FFX: Fast, scalable, deterministic symbolic regression technology, in Genetic Programming Theory and Practice IX, edited by R. Riolo, E. Vladislavleva, and J. H. Moore (Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2011), pp 235–260.
  32. B. Burlacu, G. Kronberger, and M. Kommenda, Operon C++ an efficient genetic programming framework for symbolic regression, in Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, edited by Carlos Artemio Coello Coello (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, United States, Cancún Mexico, 2020), pp. 1562–1570.
  33. G. Kronberger, L. Kammerer, and M. Kommenda, Identification of dynamical systems using symbolic regression, in Computer Aided Systems Theory—EUROCAST 2019: 17th International Conference, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, February 17–22, 2019, Revised Selected Papers, Part I 17, edited by R. Moreno-Díaz, A. Quesada-Arencibia, and F. Pichler (Springer, Las Palmas de Gran Canria, Spain, 2020), pp. 370–377.
  34. M. Schmidt and H. Lipson, Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data, Science 324, 81 (2009).
  35. H. Oh, R. Amici, G. Bomarito, S. Zhe, R. M. Kirby, and J. Hochhalter, Inherently interpretable machine learning solutions to differential equations, Eng. Comput. 40, 2349 (2024).
  36. S.-M. Udrescu and M. Tegmark, AI Feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression, Sci. Adv. 6, eaay2631 (2020).
  37. J. Dong and J. Zhong, Recent advances in symbolic regression, ACM Comput. Surv. 57, 1 (2025).
  38. N. Makke and S. Chawla, Interpretable scientific discovery with symbolic regression: A review, Artif. Intell. Rev. 57, 2 (2024).
  39. W. X. Wang, R. Yang, Y. Lai, V. Kovanis, and C. Grebogi, Predicting catastrophes in nonlinear dynamical systems by compressive sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 154101 (2011).
  40. H. Schaeffer, R. Caflisch, C. D. Hauck, and S. Osher, Sparse dynamics for partial differential equations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6634 (2013).
  41. S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932 (2016).
  42. J. Loiseau and S. L. Brunton, Constrained sparse Galerkin regression, J. Fluid Mech. 838, 42 (2018).
  43. M. Dam, M. Brøns, J. Juul Rasmussen, V. Naulin, and J. S. Hesthaven, Sparse identification of a predator-prey system from simulation data of a convection model, Phys. Plasmas 24, 022310 (2017).
  44. S. Beetham and J. Capecelatro, Formulating turbulence closures using sparse regression with embedded form invariance, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 084611 (2020).
  45. A. A. Kaptanoglu, L. Zhang, Z. G. Nicolaou, U. Fasel, and S. L. Brunton, Benchmarking sparse system identification with low-dimensional chaos, Nonlinear Dyn. 111, 13143 (2023).
  46. L. Boninsegna, F. Nüske, and C. Clementi, Sparse learning of stochastic dynamical equations, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 241723 (2018).
  47. E. Kaiser, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics for model predictive control in the low-data limit, Proc. R. Soc. A 474, 20180335 (2018).
  48. K. Kaheman, J. N. Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, Sindy-PI: A robust algorithm for parallel implicit sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics, Proc. R. Soc. A 476, 20200279 (2020).
  49. P. Goyal and P. Benner, Discovery of nonlinear dynamical systems using a Runge–Kutta inspired dictionary-based sparse regression approach, Proc. R. Soc. A 478, 20210883 (2022).
  50. A. Arzani, L. Yuan, P. Newell, and B. Wang, Interpreting and generalizing deep learning in physics-based problems with functional linear models, Eng. Comput. 41, 135 (2025).
  51. A. A. Kaptanoglu, J. L. Callaham, A. Aravkin, C. J. Hansen, and S. L. Brunton, Promoting global stability in data-driven models of quadratic nonlinear dynamics, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 094401 (2021).
  52. J. L. Callaham, J. C. Loiseau, G. Rigas, and S. L. Brunton, Nonlinear stochastic modelling with Langevin regression, Proc. R. Soc. A 477, 20210092 (2021).
  53. A. Nabeel, A. Karichannavar, S. Palathingal, J. Jhawar, D. B. Brückner, D. R. M, and V. Guttal, Discovering stochastic dynamical equations from ecological time series data, Am. Nat. 205, E100 (2025).
  54. A. Gerardos and P. Ronceray, Principled model selection for stochastic dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 167401 (2025).
  55. S. Zhang and G. Lin, Robust data-driven discovery of governing physical laws with error bars, Proc. R. Soc. A 474, 20180305 (2018).
  56. K. Champion, P. Zheng, A. Y. Aravkin, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, A unified sparse optimization framework to learn parsimonious physics-informed models from data, IEEE Access 8, 169259 (2020).
  57. E. J. Candes, M. B. Wakin, and S. P. Boyd, Enhancing sparsity by reweighted ℓ1 minimization, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 14, 877 (2008).
  58. I. Daubechies, R. DeVore, M. Fornasier, and C. S. Güntürk, Iteratively reweighted least squares minimization for sparse recovery, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 63, 1 (2010).
  59. M.-J. Lai, Y. Xu, and W. Yin, Improved iteratively reweighted least squares for unconstrained smoothed ℓq minimization, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 51, 927 (2013).
  60. T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. H. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction (Springer, New York, USA, 2009), Vol. 2.
  61. R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, J. R. Stat. Soc. B 58, 267 (1996).
  62. A. Beck and Y. C. Eldar, Sparsity constrained nonlinear optimization: Optimality conditions and algorithms, SIAM J. Optim. 23, 1480 (2013).
  63. Z. Yang, Z. Wang, H. Liu, Y. C. Eldar, and T. Zhang, Sparse nonlinear regression: Parameter estimation under nonconvexity, in International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by M. F. Balcan and K. Q. Weinberger (PMLR, New York, USA, 2016), pp. 2472–2481.
  64. H. Zou, The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101, 1418 (2006).
  65. R. C. Aster, B. Borchers, and C. H. Thurber, Parameter Estima- tion and Inverse Problems (Elsevier, 2018).
  66. L. D. McClenny and U. M. Braga-Neto, Self-adaptive physics-informed neural networks, J. Comput. Phys. 474, 111722 (2023).
  67. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686 (2019).
  68. D. Oettinger and G. Haller, An autonomous dynamical system captures all lcss in three-dimensional unsteady flows, Chaos 26, 103111 (2016).
  69. N. Boddupalli, T. Matchen, and J. Moehlis, Symbolic regression via neural networks, Chaos 33, 083150 (2023).
  70. P. Gray and S. K. Scott, Chemical Oscillations and Instabilities: Non-Linear Chemical Kinetics (Oxford University Press, 1990).
  71. N. A. Daryakenari, M. De Florio, K. Shukla, and G. E. Karniadakis, AI-Aristotle: A physics-informed framework for systems biology gray-box identification, PLoS Comput. Biol. 20, e1011916 (2024).
  72. P. Macheras and A. Iliadis, Modeling in Biopharmaceutics, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Approaches (Springer, Switzerland, 2016), Vol. 30.
  73. S. H. Rudy, S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations, Sci. Adv. 3, e1602614 (2017).
  74. S. Viknesh, A. Tohidi, F. Afghah, R. Stoll, and A. Arzani, Role of flow topology in wind-driven wildfire propagation, Phys. Fluids 37, 076608 (2025).
  75. A. D. Jagtap, K. Kawaguchi, and G. E. Karniadakis, Adaptive activation functions accelerate convergence in deep and physics-informed neural networks, J. Comput. Phys. 404, 109136 (2020).
  76. G. M. Correia, V. Niculae, and A. F. Martins, Adaptively sparse transformers, arXiv:1909.00015.
  77. W. D. Fries, X. He, and Y. Choi, LaSDI: Parametric latent space dynamics identification, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 399, 115436 (2022).
  78. https://github.com/siva-viknesh/ADAM-SINDy.
  79. C. Daskalakis, A. Ilyas, V. Syrgkanis, and H. Zeng, Training GANs with optimism, International Conference on Learning Representation, arXiv:1711.00141.
  80. P. Mertikopoulos, B. Lecouat, H. Zenati, C.-S. Foo, V. Chandrasekhar, and G. Piliouras, Optimistic Mirror Descent in Saddle-point Problems: Going the Extra(-gradient) Mile (International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019).
  81. C. Daskalakis and I. Panageas, The limit points of (optimistic) gradient descent in min-max optimization, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31 (2018).
  82. M. Cranmer, Interpretable machine learning for science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl, arXiv:2305.01582.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013040– Published 15 January, 2026
  • Received 23 September 2025
  • Accepted 24 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation