Papers › When are dynamical systems learned from time series data statistically accurate?

When are dynamical systems learned from time series data statistically accurate?

9 Nov 2024arXiv:2411.06311archive 2025-07-28

Jeongjin Park, Nicole Yang, Nisha Chandramoorthy

Conventional notions of generalization often fail to describe the ability of learned models to capture meaningful information from dynamical data. A neural network that learns complex dynamics with a small test error may still fail to reproduce its \emph{physical} behavior, including associated statistical moments and Lyapunov exponents. To address this gap, we propose an ergodic theoretic approach to generalization of complex dynamical models learned from time series data. Our main contribution is to define and analyze generalization of a broad suite of neural representations of classes of ergodic systems, including chaotic systems, in a way that captures emulating underlying invariant, physical measures. Our results provide theoretical justification for why regression methods for generators of dynamical systems (Neural ODEs) fail to generalize, and why their statistical accuracy improves upon adding Jacobian information during training. We verify our results on a number of ergodic chaotic systems and neural network parameterizations, including MLPs, ResNets, Fourier Neural layers, and RNNs.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

16 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 16 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ni-sha-c/stacNODE. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections