Tyson, J. J., Chen, K. C. & Novak, B. Sniffers, buzzers, toggles and blinkers: dynamics of regulatory and signaling pathways in the cell. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 15, 221–231 (2003).
Google Scholar
Goldbeter, A., Gérard, C., Gonze, D., Leloup, J.-C. & Dupont, G. Systems biology of cellular rhythms. FEBS Lett. 586, 2955–2965 (2012).
Google Scholar
Gelens, L., Anderson, G. A. & Ferrell, J. E. Jr. Spatial trigger waves: positive feedback gets you a long way. Mol. Biol. Cell 25, 3486–3493 (2014).
Google Scholar
Beta, C. & Kruse, K. Intracellular oscillations and waves. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 8, 239–264 (2017).
Google Scholar
Deneke, V. E. & Di Talia, S. Chemical waves in cell and developmental biology. J. Cell Biol. 217, 1193–1204 (2018).
Google Scholar
Volpert, V. & Petrovskii, S. Reaction–diffusion waves in biology. Phys. Life Rev. 6, 267–310 (2009).
Google Scholar
Goldbeter, A. Dissipative structures in biological systems: bistability, oscillations, spatial patterns and waves. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20170376 (2018).
Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. E., Tsai, T. Y.-C. & Yang, Q. Modeling the cell cycle: why do certain circuits oscillate? Cell 144, 874–885 (2011).
Google Scholar
Novak, B. & Tyson, J. J. Modeling the cell division cycle: M-phase trigger, oscillations, and size control. J. Theor. Biol. 165, 101–134 (1993).
Google Scholar
Dunlap, J. C. Molecular bases for circadian clocks. Cell 96, 271–290 (1999).
Google Scholar
Bell-Pedersen, D. et al. Circadian rhythms from multiple oscillators: lessons from diverse organisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 544–556 (2005).
Google Scholar
Berridge, M. J. & Galione, A. Cytosolic calcium oscillators. FASEB J. 2, 3074–3082 (1988).
Google Scholar
Borghans, J. M., Dupont, G. & Goldbeter, A. Complex intracellular calcium oscillations a theoretical exploration of possible mechanisms. Biophys. Chem. 66, 25–41 (1997).
Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. & Chance, B. Oscillations of glycolytic intermediates in yeast cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 16, 174–181 (1964).
Google Scholar
Chandra, F. A., Buzi, G. & Doyle, J. C. Glycolytic oscillations and limits on robust efficiency. Science 333, 187–192 (2011).
Google Scholar
Geva-Zatorsky, N. et al. Oscillations and variability in the p53 system. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2, MSB4100068 (2006).
Google Scholar
Batchelor, E., Mock, C. S., Bhan, I., Loewer, A. & Lahav, G. Recurrent initiation: a mechanism for triggering p53 pulses in response to DNA damage. Mol. Cell 30, 277–289 (2008).
Google Scholar
Purvis, J. E. et al. p53 dynamics control cell fate. Science 336, 1440–1444 (2012).
Google Scholar
Hodgkin, A. L. & Huxley, A. F. Action potentials recorded from inside a nerve fibre. Nature 144, 710–711 (1939).
Google Scholar
Hodgkin, A. L. & Huxley, A. F. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol. 117, 500 (1952).
Google Scholar
Izhikevich, E. M. Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2007).
Chang, J. B. & Ferrell, J. E. Jr. Mitotic trigger waves and the spatial coordination of the Xenopus cell cycle. Nature 500, 603–607 (2013).
Google Scholar
Devreotes, P. N., Potel, M. J. & MacKay, S. A. Quantitative analysis of cyclic AMP waves mediating aggregation in Dictyostelium discoideum. Dev. Biol. 96, 405–415 (1983).
Google Scholar
De Simone, A. et al. Control of osteoblast regeneration by a train of Erk activity waves. Nature 590, 129–133 (2021).
Google Scholar
Strogatz, S. H. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos (CRC Press, 2000).
Camps-Valls, G. et al. Discovering causal relations and equations from data. Phys. Rep. 1044, 1–68 (2023).
Google Scholar
Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Takens, F. in Dynamical Systems and Turbulence (eds Rand, D. & Young, L.-S.) 366–381 (Springer, 1981).
Abarbanel, H. D., Brown, R. & Kadtke, J. B. Prediction in chaotic nonlinear systems: methods for time series with broadband Fourier spectra. Phys. Rev. A. 41, 1782 (1990).
Google Scholar
Casdagli, M. Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series. Phys. D 35, 335–356 (1989).
Google Scholar
Mindlin, G. M. & Gilmore, R. Topological analysis and synthesis of chaotic time series. Phys. D 58, 229–242 (1992).
Google Scholar
Grassberger, P., Schreiber, T. & Schaffrath, C. Nonlinear time sequence analysis. Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 01, 521–547 (2012).
Google Scholar
Bucci, M. A., Semeraro, O., Allauzen, A., Chibbaro, S. & Mathelin, L. Curriculum learning for data-driven modeling of dynamical systems. Eur. Phys. J. E 46, 1–14 (2023).
Google Scholar
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Commun. ACM 60, 84–90 (2017).
Google Scholar
Alber, M. et al. Integrating machine learning and multiscale modeling-perspectives, challenges, and opportunities in the biological, biomedical, and behavioral sciences. npj Digit. Med. 2, 115 (2019).
Google Scholar
Maizels, R. J. & Briscoe, J. Gene regulatory networks: from correlative models to causal explanations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 27, 1–14 (2026).
Google Scholar
Prokop, B. & Gelens, L. Review data-driven methods. GitLab https://gitlab.kuleuven.be/gelenslab/publications/review-data-driven-methods.git (2025).
Cranmer, K., Brehmer, J. & Louppe, G. The frontier of simulation-based inference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 30055–30062 (2020).
Google Scholar
Toni, T., Welch, D., Strelkowa, N., Ipsen, A. & Stumpf, M. P. Approximate Bayesian computation scheme for parameter inference and model selection in dynamical systems. J. R. Soc. Interface 6, 187–202 (2009).
Google Scholar
Liepe, J. et al. A framework for parameter estimation and model selection from experimental data in systems biology using approximate Bayesian computation. Nat. Protoc. 9, 439–456 (2014).
Google Scholar
Koopman, B. O. Hamiltonian systems and transformation in Hilbert space. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 17, 315–318 (1931).
Google Scholar
Koopman, B. O. & Neumann, J. V. Dynamical systems of continuous spectra. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 18, 255–263 (1932).
Google Scholar
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G. Physics-informed neural networks: a deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686–707 (2019).
Google Scholar
Yazdani, A., Lu, L., Raissi, M. & Karniadakis, G. E. Systems biology informed deep learning for inferring parameters and hidden dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007575 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lagergren, J. H., Nardini, J. T., Baker, R. E., Simpson, M. J. & Flores, K. B. Biologically-informed neural networks guide mechanistic modeling from sparse experimental data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1008462 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kovacic, I. & Brennan, M. J. The Duffing Equation: Nonlinear Oscillators and Their Behaviour (John Wiley & Sons, 2011).
Cebrián-Lacasa, D., Parra-Rivas, P., Ruiz-Reynés, D. & Gelens, L. Six decades of the Fitzhugh–Nagumo model: a guide through its spatio-temporal dynamics and influence across disciplines. Phys. Rep. 1096, 1–39 (2024).
Google Scholar
Gilpin, W. Chaos as an interpretable benchmark for forecasting and data-driven modelling. In Proc. Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1 (eds Vanschoren, J. and Yeung, S.) (Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, 2021).
Wisdom, J. O. Causation and modern science. Nature 187, 92–92 (1960).
Google Scholar
Saint-Antoine, M. M. & Singh, A. Network inference in systems biology: recent developments, challenges, and applications. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 63, 89–98 (2020).
Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37, 424 (1969).
Google Scholar
Shojaie, A. & Fox, E. B. Granger causality: a review and recent advances. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 9, 289–319 (2022).
Google Scholar
Runge, J. et al. Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences. Nat. Commun. 10, 2553 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nawrath, J. et al. Distinguishing direct from indirect interactions in oscillatory networks with multiple time scales. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 038701 (2010).
Google Scholar
Guo, S., Seth, A. K., Kendrick, K. M., Zhou, C. & Feng, J. Partial Granger causality — eliminating exogenous inputs and latent variables. J. Neurosci. Methods 172, 79–93 (2008).
Google Scholar
Stokes, P. A. & Purdon, P. L. A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7063–E7072 (2017).
Google Scholar
Park, S. H., Ha, S. & Kim, J. K. A general model-based causal inference method overcomes the curse of synchrony and indirect effect. Nat. Commun. 14, 4287 (2023).
Google Scholar
Rupe, A., DeSantis, D., Bakker, C., Kooloth, P. & Lu, J. Causal discovery in nonlinear dynamical systems using Koopman operators. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.10103 (2024).
Di Antonio, G. & Vinci, G. V. Non-linear correlations underlie linear response and causality. Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L042029 (2024).
Google Scholar
Billings, S. A. & Mao, K. Z. Structure detection for nonlinear rational models using genetic algorithms. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 29, 223–231 (1998).
Google Scholar
Chen, S., Billings, S. A., Cowan, C. F. & Grant, P. M. Practical identification of NARMAX models using radial basis functions. Int. J. Control 52, 1327–1350 (1990).
Google Scholar
Hong, X. et al. Model selection approaches for non-linear system identification: a review. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 39, 925–946 (2008).
Google Scholar
Kukreja, S. L., Galiana, H. L. & Kearney, R. E. NARMAX representation and identification of ankle dynamics. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 50, 70–81 (2003).
Google Scholar
Khodadadi, V., Rahatabad, F. N., Sheikhani, A. & Dabanloo, N. J. Prediction of biceps muscle electromyogram signal using a NARX neural network. J. Med. Signals Sens. 13, 29–39 (2023).
Google Scholar
Mendes, P. & Kell, D. B. Non-linear optimization of biochemical pathways: applications to metabolic engineering and parameter estimation. Bioinformatics 14, 869–883 (1998).
Google Scholar
Krishnanathan, K., Anderson, S. R., Billings, S. A. & Kadirkamanathan, V. A data-driven framework for identifying nonlinear dynamic models of genetic parts. ACS Synth. Biol. 1, 375–384 (2012).
Google Scholar
Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932–3937 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hirsh, S. M., Barajas-Solano, D. A. & Kutz, J. N. Sparsifying priors for Bayesian uncertainty quantification in model discovery. R. Soc. Open Sci. 9, 211823 (2022).
Google Scholar
Fasel, U., Kutz, J. N., Brunton, B. W. & Brunton, S. L. Ensemble-SINDy: robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learning and control. Proc. R. Soc. A 478, 20210904 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sandoz, A., Ducret, V., Gottwald, G. A., Vilmart, G. & Perron, K. SINDy for delay-differential equations: application to model bacterial zinc response. Proc. R. Soc. A 479, 20220556 (2023).
Google Scholar
dos Anjos, L. et al. A new modelling framework for predator–prey interactions: a case study of an aphid-ladybeetle system. Ecol. Inform. 77, 102168 (2023).
Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Vilchis, A., Perfecto-Avalos, Y. & Garcia-Gonzalez, A. Modeling bacteria pairwise interactions in human microbiota by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics (SINDy). In Proc. 45th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) 1–4 (IEEE, 2023).
Messenger, D., Dwyer, G. & Dukic, V. Weak-form inference for hybrid dynamical systems in ecology. J. R. Soc. Interface 21, 20240376 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mangan, N. M., Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Inferring biological networks by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics. IEEE Trans. Mol. Biol. Multiscale Commun. 2, 52–63 (2016).
Google Scholar
Messenger, D. A., Wheeler, G. E., Liu, X. & Bortz, D. M. Learning anisotropic interaction rules from individual trajectories in a heterogeneous cellular population. J. R. Soc. Interface 19, 20220412 (2022).
Google Scholar
Brummer, A. B. et al. Data driven model discovery and interpretation for CAR T-cell killing using sparse identification and latent variables. Front. Immunol. 14, 1115536 (2023).
Google Scholar
Naozuka, G. T., Rocha, H. L., Pereira, T. J., Libotte, G. B. & Almeida, R. C. Connecting different approaches for cell cycle modeling: learning ordinary differential equations from individual-based models. IEEE Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 22, 1–13 (2025).
Google Scholar
Chen, Z., Liu, Y. & Sun, H. Physics-informed learning of governing equations from scarce data. Nat. Commun. 12, 6136 (2021).
Google Scholar
Delahunt, C. B. & Kutz, J. N. A toolkit for data-driven discovery of governing equations in high-noise regimes. IEEE Access 10, 31210–31234 (2022).
Google Scholar
Cortiella, A., Park, K. C. & Doostan, A. A priori denoising strategies for sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems: a comparative study. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 23, 1–34 (2022).
Google Scholar
Prokop, B. & Gelens, L. From biological data to oscillator models using SINDy. iScience 27, 109316 (2024).
Google Scholar
Messenger, D. A. & Bortz, D. M. Weak SINDy: Galerkin-based data-driven model selection. Multiscale Model. Simul. 19, 1474–1497 (2021).
Google Scholar
Eiben, A. E. & Smith, J. E. Introduction to Evolutionary Computing (Springer, 2015).
Schmidt, M. & Lipson, H. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. Science 324, 81–85 (2009).
Google Scholar
Udrescu, S. M. & Tegmark, M. AI Feynman: a physics-inspired method for symbolic regression. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay2631 (2020).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. D. et al. Automated refinement and inference of analytical models for metabolic networks. Phys. Biol. 8, 055011 (2011).
Google Scholar
Beauregard, N., Marten, M., Harris, S. & Srivastava, R. Enhanced symbolic regression to infer biochemical network models. In Proc. Biochemical and Molecular Engineering XXI https://doi.org/10.13016/m2ysew-eabi (University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2019).
Zhang, L. & Schaeffer, H. On the convergence of the SINDy algorithm. Multiscale Model. Simul. 17, 948–972 (2019).
Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Angulo, M. T. & Liu, Y. Y. Revealing complex ecological dynamics via symbolic regression. Bioessays 41, e1900069 (2019).
Google Scholar
Haldar, S., Stein-Thoeringer, C. & Borisov, V. Interpreting microbiome relative abundance data using symbolic regression. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.16109 (2024).
Daniels, B. C. & Nemenman, I. Efficient inference of parsimonious phenomenological models of cellular dynamics using S-systems and alternating regression. PLoS One 10, e0119821 (2015).
Google Scholar
Daniels, B. C. & Nemenman, I. Automated adaptive inference of phenomenological dynamical models. Nat. Commun. 6, 8133 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hou, J., Chen, X., Wu, T., Kuhl, E. & Wang, X. Automated data-driven discovery of material models based on symbolic regression: a case study on human brain cortex. Acta Biomater. 188, 276–296 (2024).
Google Scholar
Schaeffer, H. & McCalla, S. G. Sparse model selection via integral terms. Phys. Rev. E 96, 023302 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lyons, R., Dukic, V. & Bortz, D. M. Learning structured population models from data with WSINDy. PLoS Comput. Biol. 21, 1–22 (2025).
Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Huan, X. & Garikipati, K. Variational system identification of the partial differential equations governing the physics of pattern-formation: inference under varying fidelity and noise. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 356, 44–74 (2019).
Google Scholar
Pantazis, Y. & Tsamardinos, I. A unified approach for sparse dynamical system inference from temporal measurements. Bioinformatics 35, 3387–3396 (2018).
Google Scholar
Billings, S. A. & Leontaritis, I. J. Parameter estimation techniques for nonlinear systems. IFAC Proc. Vol. 15, 505–510 (1982).
Google Scholar
Suykens, J. A. Nonlinear modelling and support vector machines. In Proc. 18th IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference. Rediscovering Measurement in the Age of Informatics 287–294 (IEEE, 2001).
Gilpin, W., Huang, Y. & Forger, D. B. Learning dynamics from large biological data sets: machine learning meets systems biology. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 22, 1–7 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ben-Hur, A., Ong, C. S., Sonnenburg, S., Schölkopf, B. & Rätsch, G. Support vector machines and kernels for computational biology. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000173 (2008).
Google Scholar
Gillani, Z., Akash, M. S. H., Rahaman, M. D. M. & Chen, M. CompareSVM: supervised, support vector machine (SVM) inference of gene regularity networks. BMC Bioinform. 15, 395 (2014).
Google Scholar
Vert, J.-P., Qiu, J. & Noble, W. S. A new pairwise kernel for biological network inference with support vector machines. BMC Bioinformatics 8, S8 (2007).
Google Scholar
Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (MIT Press, 2005).
Gao, P., Honkela, A., Rattray, M. & Lawrence, N. D. Gaussian process modelling of latent chemical species: applications to inferring transcription factor activities. Bioinformatics 24, i70–i75 (2008).
Google Scholar
Frigola, R., Chen, Y. & Rasmussen, C. E. Variational Gaussian process state-space models. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 27 (2014).
Narendra, K. S. & Parthasarathy, K. Neural networks and dynamical systems. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 6, 109–131 (1992).
Google Scholar
Suykens, J. A. K., Vandewalle, J. P. L. & De Moor, B. L. R. Artificial Neural Networks for Modelling and Control of Non-Linear Systems (Springer, 1996).
Rumelhart, D. E., MacClelland, J. L. & Hinton, G. E. in Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations 45–76 (MIT Press, 1987).
Plaut, D. C. & Hinton, G. E. Learning sets of filters using back-propagation. Comput. Speech Lang. 2, 35–61 (1987).
Google Scholar
Raissi, M. & Karniadakis, G. E. Hidden physics models: machine learning of nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 357, 125–141 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sandberg, I. W. et al. Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: Feedforward Neural Network Perspectives (John Wiley & Sons, 2001).
Chattopadhyay, A., Subel, A. & Hassanzadeh, P. Data-driven super-parameterization using deep learning: experimentation with multiscale Lorenz 96 systems and transfer learning. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2020MS002084 (2020).
Google Scholar
Nagarajan, R. & Jonkman, J. N. A neural network model to translate brain developmental events across mammalian species. PLoS One 8, e53225 (2013).
Google Scholar
Choo, S. M., Almomani, L. M. & Cho, K. H. Boolean feedforward neural network modeling of molecular regulatory networks for cellular state conversion. Front. Physiol. 11, 594151 (2020).
Google Scholar
Chen, F. & Li, C. Inferring structural and dynamical properties of gene networks from data with deep learning. NAR Genom. Bioinform. 4, lqac068 (2022).
Google Scholar
Nilsson, A., Peters, J. M., Meimetis, N., Bryson, B. & Lauffenburger, D. A. Artificial neural networks enable genome-scale simulations of intracellular signaling. Nat. Commun. 13, 3069 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wang, W., Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M. & Vrijling, J. K. in Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 3697, 559–564 (Springer, 2005).
Pan, S. & Duraisamy, K. Long time predictive modeling of nonlinear dynamical systems using neural networks. Complexity 2018, 4801012 (2018).
Google Scholar
Prokop, B., Billen, J., Frolov, N. & Gelens, L. Machine learning identifies nullclines in oscillatory dynamical systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16240v1 (2025).
Pathak, J., Lu, Z., Hunt, B. R., Girvan, M. & Ott, E. Using machine learning to replicate chaotic attractors and calculate Lyapunov exponents from data. Chaos 27, 121102 (2017).
Google Scholar
Cestnik, R. & Abel, M. Inferring the dynamics of oscillatory systems using recurrent neural networks. Chaos 29, 63128 (2019).
Google Scholar
Vlachas, P. R., Byeon, W., Wan, Z. Y., Sapsis, T. P. & Koumoutsakos, P. Data-driven forecasting of high-dimensional chaotic systems with long short-term memory networks. Proc. R. Soc. A 474, 20170844 (2018).
Google Scholar
Samarasinghe, S. & Ling, H. A system of recurrent neural networks for modularising, parameterising and dynamic analysis of cell signalling networks. Biosystems 153–154, 6–25 (2017).
Google Scholar
Jia, X. et al. Physics guided RNNs for modeling dynamical systems: a case study in simulating lake temperature profiles. In Proc. 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM) 558–566 (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2019).
Baranwal, M. et al. Recurrent neural networks enable design of multifunctional synthetic human gut microbiome dynamics. Elife 11, e73870 (2022).
Google Scholar
Vidal-Saez, M. S., Vilarroya, O. & Garcia-Ojalvo, J. Biological computation through recurrence. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 728, 150301 (2024).
Google Scholar
Vidal-Saez, M. S. & Garcia-Ojalvo, J. Structural determinants of soft memory in recurrent biological networks. Biophys. Rev. 17, 259–269 (2025).
Google Scholar
Jaeger, H. The ‘Echo State’ Approach to Analysing and Training Recurrent Neural Networks — with an Erratum Note. GMD Report No. 148 (German National Research Center for Information Technology, 2001).
Tanaka, G. et al. Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: a review. Neural Netw. 115, 100–123 (2019).
Google Scholar
Gauthier, D. J., Bollt, E., Griffith, A. & Barbosa, W. A. Next generation reservoir computing. Nat. Commun. 12, 5564 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bourlard, H. & Kamp, Y. Auto-association by multilayer perceptrons and singular value decomposition. Biol. Cybern. 59, 291–294 (1988).
Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S. & Teh, Y. W. A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Comput. 18, 1527–1554 (2006).
Google Scholar
Otto, S. E. & Rowley, C. W. Linearly recurrent autoencoder networks for learning dynamics. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 18, 558–593 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sondak, D. & Protopapas, P. Learning a reduced basis of dynamical systems using an autoencoder. Phys. Rev. E 104, 034202 (2021).
Google Scholar
Maizels, R. J., Snell, D. M. & Briscoe, J. Reconstructing developmental trajectories using latent dynamical systems and time-resolved transcriptomics. Cell Syst. 15, 411–424 (2024).
Google Scholar
Baig, Y., Ma, H. R., Xu, H. & You, L. Autoencoder neural networks enable low dimensional structure analyses of microbial growth dynamics. Nat. Commun. 14, 7937 (2023).
Google Scholar
Wehmeyer, C. & Noé, F. Time-lagged autoencoders: deep learning of slow collective variables for molecular kinetics. J. Chem. Phys. 148, 241703 (2018).
Google Scholar
Liu, S., You, Y., Tong, Z. & Zhang, L. Developing an embedding, Koopman and autoencoder technologies-based multi-omics time series predictive model (EKATP) for systems biology research. Front. Genet. 12, 761629 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kingma, D. P. & Welling, M. Auto-encoding variational Bayes. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.6114 (2022).
Asperti, A., Evangelista, D. & Piccolomini, E. L. A survey on variational autoencoders from a green AI perspective. SN Comput. Sci. 2, 301 (2021).
Google Scholar
Shrivastava, A., Rameshan, R. & Agnihotri, S. Latent space characterization of autoencoder variants. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04755 (2025).
Lusch, B., Kutz, J. N. & Brunton, S. L. Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics. Nat. Commun. 9, 4950 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lopez, R. & Atzberger, P. J. Variational autoencoders for learning nonlinear dynamics of physical systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.03448 (2020).
Zeng, K., De Jesús, C. E., Fox, A. J. & Graham, M. D. Autoencoders for discovering manifold dimension and coordinates in data from complex dynamical systems. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 5, 025053 (2023).
Google Scholar
Strasser, P., Pfeffer, A., Weber, J., Gurtner, M. & Körner, A. Comparison of neural network training strategies for the simulation of dynamical systems. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03851 (2026).
Zhang, C., Bengio, S., Hardt, M., Recht, B. & Vinyals, O. Understanding deep learning (still) requires rethinking generalization. Commun. ACM 64, 107–115 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chen, R. T. Q., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J. & Duvenaud, D. K. Neural ordinary differential equations. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (eds Bengio, S. et al.) (NeurIPS, 2018).
Sanchez-Gonzalez, A. et al. Graph networks as learnable physics engines for inference and control. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning 4470–4479 (PMLR, 2018).
Cranmer, M. et al. Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11287 (2020).
Vaswani, A. et al. Attention is all you need. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 30, 6000–6010 (2017).
Zhang, S. et al. Applications of transformer-based language models in bioinformatics: a survey. Bioinform. Adv. 3, vbad001 (2023).
Google Scholar
Geneva, N. & Zabaras, N. Transformers for modeling physical systems. Neural Netw. 146, 272–289 (2022).
Google Scholar
Schmid, P. J. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 5–28 (2010).
Google Scholar
Berkooz, G., Holmes, P. & Lumley, J. L. The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 25, 539–575 (1993).
Google Scholar
Rowley, C. W., Mezi, I., Bagheri, S., Schlatter, P. & Henningson, D. S. Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 641, 115–127 (2009).
Google Scholar
Tu, J. H. et al. On dynamic mode decomposition: theory and applications. J. Comput. Dyn. 1, 391–421 (2014).
Google Scholar
Williams, M. O., Kevrekidis, I. G. & Rowley, C. W. A data-driven approximation of the Koopman operator: extending dynamic mode decomposition. J. Nonlinear Sci. 25, 1307–1346 (2015).
Google Scholar
Brunton, B. W., Johnson, L. A., Ojemann, J. G. & Kutz, J. N. Extracting spatial-temporal coherent patterns in large-scale neural recordings using dynamic mode decomposition. J. Neurosci. Methods 258, 1–15 (2016).
Google Scholar
Karabiber Cura, O. & Akan, A. Analysis of epileptic EEG signals by using dynamic mode decomposition and spectrum. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 41, 28–44 (2021).
Google Scholar
Balakrishnan, S. et al. Prediction of fitness in bacteria with causal jump dynamic mode decomposition. In Proc. 2020 American Control Conference 3749–3756 (IEEE, 2020).
Skantze, V. et al. Data-driven analysis and prediction of dynamic postprandial metabolic response to multiple dietary challenges using dynamic mode decomposition. Front. Nutr. 10, 1304540 (2023).
Google Scholar
Habibi, M., Dawson, S. T. M. & Arzani, A. Data-driven pulsatile blood flow physics with dynamic mode decomposition. Fluids 5, 111 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bourantas, G. C. et al. Real-time tumor ablation simulation based on the dynamic mode decomposition method. Med. Phys. 41, 053301 (2014).
Google Scholar
Chen, K. K., Tu, J. H. & Rowley, C. W. Variants of dynamic mode decomposition: boundary condition, Koopman, and Fourier analyses. J. Nonlinear Sci. 22, 887–915 (2012).
Google Scholar
Hemati, M. S., Rowley, C. W., Deem, E. A. & Cattafesta, L. N. De-biasing the dynamic mode decomposition for applied Koopman spectral analysis of noisy datasets. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 31, 349–368 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lee, D. D. & Seung, H. S. Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature 401, 788–791 (1999).
Google Scholar
Devarajan, K. Nonnegative matrix factorization: an analytical and interpretive tool in computational biology. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000029 (2008).
Google Scholar
Stein-O’Brien, G. L. et al. Enter the matrix: factorization uncovers knowledge from omics. Trends Genet. 34, 790–805 (2018).
Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika 31, 279–311 (1966).
Google Scholar
Kolda, T. G. & Bader, B. W. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM Rev. 51, 455–500 (2009).
Google Scholar
Brunton, S. L., Brunton, B. W., Proctor, J. L., Kaiser, E. & Kutz, J. N. Chaos as an intermittently forced linear system. Nat. Commun. 8, 19 (2017).
Google Scholar
Champion, K. P., Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Discovery of nonlinear multiscale systems: sampling strategies and embeddings. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 18, 312–333 (2019).
Google Scholar
Tan, E. et al. Selecting embedding delays: an overview of embedding techniques and a new method using persistent homology. Chaos 33, 53 (2023).
Google Scholar
Balasubramanian, H., Hobson, C. M., Chew, T.-L. & Aaron, J. S. Imagining the future of optical microscopy: everything, everywhere, all at once. Commun. Biol. 6, 1096 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hickey, S. M. et al. Fluorescence microscopy — an outline of hardware, biological handling, and fluorophore considerations. Cells 11, 35 (2022).
Google Scholar
Specht, E. A., Braselmann, E. & Palmer, A. E. A critical and comparative review of fluorescent tools for live-cell imaging. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 79, 93–117 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bressan, D., Battistoni, G. & Hannon, G. J. The dawn of spatial omics. Science 381, eabq4964 (2023).
Google Scholar
Velten, B. & Stegle, O. Principles and challenges of modeling temporal and spatial omics data. Nat. Methods 20, 1462–1474 (2023).
Google Scholar
Conard, A. M. et al. TIMEOR: a web-based tool to uncover temporal regulatory mechanisms from multi-omics data. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, W641–W653 (2021).
Google Scholar
Mihajlović, K., Malod-Dognin, N., Ameli, C., Skupin, A. & Pržulj, N. MONFIT: multi-omics factorization-based integration of time-series data sheds light on Parkinson’s disease. NAR Mol. Med. 1, 12 (2024).
Google Scholar
Jansen Klomp, L. F. et al. DANSE: a pipeline for dynamic modelling of time-series multi-omics data. BMC Bioinformatics 27, 28 (2026).
Google Scholar
Espinel-Ríos, S., Montaño López, J. & Avalos, J. L. Omics-driven hybrid dynamic modeling of bioprocesses with uncertainty estimation. Biochem. Eng. J. 216, 109637 (2025).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Sun, Y., Peng, Q., Li, T. & Zhou, P. Integrating dynamical systems modeling with spatiotemporal scRNA-seq data analysis. Entropy 27, 453 (2025).
Google Scholar
Buddingh’, B. C. & Van Hest, J. C. Artificial cells: synthetic compartments with life-like functionality and adaptivity. Acc. Chem. Res. 50, 769–777 (2017).
Google Scholar
Jiang, W. et al. Artificial cells: past, present and future. ACS Nano 16, 15705–15733 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wang, Z. et al. Integrating incompatible tandem photobiocatalysis in artificial cells enables metabolic modulation of natural cells. Sci. Adv. 11, 4828 (2025).
Google Scholar
Trapnell, C. et al. The dynamics and regulators of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotemporal ordering of single cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 381–386 (2014).
Google Scholar
Setty, M. et al. Wishbone identifies bifurcating developmental trajectories from single-cell data. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 637–645 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hutton, A. & Meyer, J. G. Trajectory inference for single cell omics. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09354 (2025).
La Manno, G. et al. RNA velocity of single cells. Nature 560, 494–498 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schiebinger, G. et al. Optimal-transport analysis of single-cell gene expression identifies developmental trajectories in reprogramming. Cell 176, 928–943 (2019).
Google Scholar
Zheng, S. C., Stein-O’Brien, G., Boukas, L., Goff, L. A. & Hansen, K. D. Pumping the brakes on RNA velocity by understanding and interpreting RNA velocity estimates. Genome Biol. 24, 246 (2023).
Google Scholar
Ancheta, S. et al. Challenges and progress in RNA velocity: comparative analysis across multiple biological contexts. PLoS Comput. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014303 (2024).
Mondal, P. K., Saha, U. S. & Mukhopadhyay, I. PseudoGA: cell pseudotime reconstruction based on genetic algorithm. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 7909–7924 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sugihara, R., Kato, Y., Mori, T. & Kawahara, Y. Alignment of single-cell trajectory trees with capital. Nat. Commun. 13, 5972 (2022).
Google Scholar
Li, Q. scTour: a deep learning architecture for robust inference and accurate prediction of cellular dynamics. Genome Biol. 24, 149 (2023).
Google Scholar
Lange, M. et al. CellRank for directed single-cell fate mapping. Nat. Methods 19, 159–170 (2022).
Google Scholar
Saelens, W., Cannoodt, R., Todorov, H. & Saeys, Y. A comparison of single-cell trajectory inference methods. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 547–554 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. et al. scLENS: data-driven signal detection for unbiased scRNA-seq data analysis. Nat. Commun. 15, 3575 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. et al. scICE: enhancing clustering reliability and efficiency of scRNA-seq data with multi-cluster label consistency evaluation. Nat. Commun. 16, 6031 (2025).
Google Scholar
Vo, H. K., Dawes, J. H. & Kelsh, R. N. Oscillatory differentiation dynamics fundamentally restricts the resolution of pseudotime reconstruction algorithms. J. R. Soc. Interface 21, 20230537 (2024).
Google Scholar
Wang, J., Xu, L. & Wang, E. Potential landscape and flux framework of nonequilibrium networks: robustness, dissipation, and coherence of biochemical oscillations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 12271–12276 (2008).
Google Scholar
Wang, J., Zhang, K., Xu, L. & Wang, E. Quantifying the Waddington landscape and biological paths for development and differentiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 8257–8262 (2011).
Google Scholar
Saez, M., Briscoe, J. & Rand, D. A. Dynamical landscapes of cell fate decisions. Interface Focus 12, 20220002 (2022).
Google Scholar
Cislo, D. J., Delás, M. J., Briscoe, J. & Siggia, E. D. Reconstructing Waddington’s landscape from data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2521762122 (2025).
Google Scholar
Rand, D. A., Raju, A., Sáez, M., Corson, F. & Siggia, E. D. Geometry of gene regulatory dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2109729118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Fontaine, M. et al. Dynamic landscape analysis of cell fate decisions: predictive models of neural development from single-cell data. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.28.656648 (2025).
Zhu, L. & Wang, J. Quantifying landscape and flux from single-cell omics: unraveling the physical mechanisms of cell function. JACS Au 5, 3738–3757 (2025).
Google Scholar
Xu, B., Ho, Z. E. & Huang, Y. Time-series modeling with neural flow maps. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.18.660388 (2025).
Iwata, T. & Kawahara, Y. Neural dynamic mode decomposition for end-to-end modeling of nonlinear dynamics. J. Comput. Dyn. 10, 268–280 (2020).
Google Scholar
Yuan, B. et al. CellBox: interpretable machine learning for perturbation biology with application to the design of cancer combination therapy. Cell Syst. 12, 128–140 (2021).
Rackauckas, C. et al. Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04385 (2020).
Philipps, M., Schmid, N. & Hasenauer, J. Current state and open problems in universal differential equations for systems biology. npj Syst. Biol. Appl. 11, 101 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kana, O. & Bhattacharya, S. Single cell universal differential equations: a machine learning framework for extracting ordinary differential equations for gene regulatory network inference. FASEB J. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2021.35.S1.03839 (2021).
Rojas-Campos, A., Stelz, L. & Nieters, P. Learning COVID-19 regional transmission using universal differential equations in a SIR model. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.16804 (2023).
Kuwahara, B. & Bauch, C. T. Predicting Covid-19 pandemic waves with biologically and behaviorally informed universal differential equations. Heliyon 10, e25363 (2024).
Google Scholar
Buckner, J. H. et al. Recovering complex ecological dynamics from time series using state-space universal dynamic equations. Commun. Earth Environ. 7, 112 (2024).
Google Scholar
Boddupalli, N., Matchen, T. & Moehlis, J. Symbolic regression via neural networks. Chaos 33, 083150 (2023).
Google Scholar
Ahmadi Daryakenari, N., De Florio, M., Shukla, K. & Karniadakis, G. E. AI-Aristotle: a physics-informed framework for systems biology gray-box identification. PLoS Comput. Biol. 20, e1011916 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bakarji, J., Callaham, J., Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Dimensionally consistent learning with Buckingham Pi. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 834–844 (2022).
Google Scholar
Bakarji, J., Champion, K., Nathan Kutz, J. & Brunton, S. L. Discovering governing equations from partial measurements with deep delay autoencoders. Proc. R. Soc. A 479, 20230422 (2023).
Google Scholar
Voina, D., Brunton, S. & Kutz, J. N. Deep generative modeling for identification of noisy, non-stationary dynamical systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.02079 (2024).
Gunawardena, J. Models in biology: ‘accurate descriptions of our pathetic thinking’. BMC Biol. 12, 29 (2014).
Google Scholar
Paluch, E. K. After the greeting: realizing the potential of physical models in cell biology. Trends Cell Biol. 25, 711–713 (2015).
Google Scholar
Goldstein, R. E. Are theoretical results ‘Results’? Elife 7, e40018 (2018).
Google Scholar
Phillips, R. Theory in biology: figure 1 or figure 7? Trends Cell Biol. 25, 723–729 (2015).
Google Scholar
Mogilner, A., Wollman, R. & Marshall, W. F. Quantitative modeling in cell biology: what is it good for? Dev. Cell 11, 279–287 (2006).
Google Scholar
Rudy, S. H., Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602614 (2017).
Google Scholar
Schaeffer, H. Learning partial differential equations via data discovery and sparse optimization. Proc. R. Soc. A 473, 20160446 (2017).
Google Scholar
Messenger, D. A. & Bortz, D. M. Asymptotic consistency of the WSINDy algorithm in the limit of continuum data. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 45, 3264–3312 (2024).
Google Scholar
Messenger, D. A. & Bortz, D. M. Weak SINDy for partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 443, 110525 (2021).
Google Scholar
Reinbold, P. A. K., Gurevich, D. R. & Grigoriev, R. O. Using noisy or incomplete data to discover models of spatiotemporal dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 101, 010203 (2020).
Google Scholar
Reinbold, P. A. K., Kageorge, L. M., Schatz, M. F. & Grigoriev, R. O. Robust learning from noisy, incomplete, high-dimensional experimental data via physically constrained symbolic regression. Nat. Commun. 12, 3219 (2021).
Google Scholar
Newton, I. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (trans. Motte, A.) (1729).
Vapnik, V., Golowich, S. & Smola, A. Support vector method for function approximation, regression estimation and signal processing. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 9, 281–287 (1996).
Cranmer, M. D., Xu, R., Battaglia, P. & Ho, S. Learning symbolic physics with graph networks. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.05862 (2019).
Herdeanu, B. et al. CausalDynamics: a large-scale benchmark for structural discovery of dynamical causal models. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16620 (2025).
Marc, H. Robust Interpretable Model for System Identification RIMSI. PhD thesis, Aalto Univ. (2025).
Kashyap, S. S., Dandekar, R. A., Dandekar, R. & Panat, S. Modeling chaotic Lorenz ODE system using scientific machine learning. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06452 (2024).
North, J. S., Wikle, C. K. & Schliep, E. M. A review of data-driven discovery for dynamic systems. Int. Stat. Rev. 91, 464–492 (2023).
Google Scholar
Brum, B. R., Lober, L., Previdelli, I. & Rodrigues, F. A. Discovering equations from data: symbolic regression in dynamical systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.20257 (2025).
Chadebec, C., Vincent, L. & Allassonniere, S. Pythae: unifying generative autoencoders in Python – a benchmarking use case. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (eds Koyejo, S. et al.) 21575–21589 (NeurIPS, 2022).
Field, R. J. & Noyes, R. M. Oscillations in chemical systems. iv. Limit cycle behavior in a model of a real chemical reaction. J. Chem. Phys. 60, 1877–1884 (1974).
Google Scholar
Tyson, J. J. in Oscillations and Traveling Waves in Chemical Systems (eds Field, R. J. & Burger, M.) 93–144 (Wiley, 1985).
