File size: 10,389 Bytes
2f932e0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
# IBM Double Pendulum Chaotic Dataset — Lagrangian, Hamiltonian and equations of motion

## Background

A **double pendulum** is a two-degree-of-freedom mechanical system: a second
pendulum hung from the tip of a first pendulum. Despite having four state
variables (two angles and two angular velocities) and a Lagrangian that fits
in one line, it is a canonical physical example of deterministic chaos: two
initially near-identical launches diverge exponentially, and no closed-form
solution for θ(t) exists beyond the small-angle linearisation.

Asseman, Kornuta & Ozcan (IBM Research AI, NeurIPS 2018 MDSD workshop) built a
physical double pendulum, filmed it with a high-speed camera, and released
**21 video runs** together with tracked marker positions per frame as the
*Double Pendulum Chaotic Dataset*. They argue that the broader spatio-temporal
prediction literature has over-fit to simulated physics, and that real
apparatus like this one is the right benchmark for chaotic dynamics.

This entry turns the dataset into a symbolic-regression benchmark by framing
three ground-truth formulas that any textbook-trained physicist (or LLM) will
recognise:

1. **`eom_theta1`** — the Euler–Lagrange equation of motion for θ̈₁.
2. **`eom_theta2`** — the Euler–Lagrange equation of motion for θ̈₂.
3. **`hamiltonian`** — the total mechanical energy H = T + V.

All three use only `(θ₁, θ₂, ω₁, ω₂)` as inputs.

## Physical setup (Asseman et al. 2018, Fig. 2b and Tab. 2c)

| quantity | value | source |
|----------|-------|--------|
| arm 1 length `l₁` (pivot → first datum)   | 91 mm  | Fig. 2b |
| arm 2 length `l₂` (first datum → second)  | 70 mm  | Fig. 2b |
| marker diameter                            | 19 mm each (three markers) | Fig. 2b |
| camera frame rate                          | 400 Hz | Tab. 2c |
| frame exposure                             | 90 µs  | Tab. 2c |
| image resolution                           | 480 × 480 px, 3 channels | Tab. 2c |
| camera focal length / distance             | 50 mm / 2 m            | §2.2     |
| bob masses `m₁`, `m₂`                      | **not reported**       | —        |
| pivot friction / damping model             | **not reported**       | —        |

The three 19 mm fiducial markers are colour-coded: **red** at the pivot,
**green** at the end of the upper arm, **blue** at the end of the lower arm.
IBM extracts marker positions by 5× upscaling the image, drawing matched
templates with scikit-image, and locating them by OpenCV template
cross-correlation; each recorded pixel coordinate is therefore **5× the raw
pixel position**, preserving sub-pixel precision.

Each run lasts roughly 40 s and contains ~17 500 frames. The pendulum is
launched by hand and the camera motion-triggered. Lighting is a DC-powered LED
floodlight (no 50/60 Hz flicker); the background is matte black to make the
markers easier to track.

## Ground-truth physics (simple-pendulum form)

With two **point masses** m₁, m₂ on massless rods of length l₁, l₂ hanging from
a fixed pivot in uniform gravity g, and angles θ₁, θ₂ measured from the
downward vertical, the kinetic and potential energies are

$$T = \tfrac{1}{2} m_1 l_1^2 \dot\theta_1^2
      + \tfrac{1}{2} m_2 \bigl[ l_1^2 \dot\theta_1^2 + l_2^2 \dot\theta_2^2
        + 2 l_1 l_2 \dot\theta_1 \dot\theta_2 \cos(\theta_1 - \theta_2) \bigr]$$

$$V = -m_1 g l_1 \cos\theta_1 - m_2 g \bigl( l_1 \cos\theta_1 + l_2 \cos\theta_2 \bigr)$$

with Lagrangian L = T − V and Hamiltonian H = T + V. Applying the
Euler–Lagrange equations and solving the resulting 2 × 2 linear system for
θ̈₁, θ̈₂ gives the closed form used by `formulas/eom_theta1.py` and
`formulas/eom_theta2.py`. These match the Wikipedia "Double pendulum" article
and Levien & Tan, *Am. J. Phys.* 61 (1993) 1038. All three formula modules were
verified bit-exact against an RK4-integrated trajectory: `max |f(X) − θ̈|` was
numerically 0.0 on 500 test points, and H is conserved to ~1 × 10⁻⁵ J/kg over
a 20 s integration (integrator error only).

## Why the real-apparatus fit is imperfect

1. **Unreported bob masses.** IBM's paper gives arm lengths but not `m₁, m₂`.
   The formulas assume `m₁ = m₂ = 1` kg; because the equations for θ̈₁ and θ̈₂
   depend on mass ratios only through `m₂ / (2 m₁ + m₂)` and `m₁ + m₂`, the
   1:1 assumption is a **systematic bias** if the upper arm's extra rod mass
   contributes meaningfully to m₁. The functional form remains correct.
2. **Pivot friction and air drag.** Real pendulum dynamics dissipate energy.
   Fig. 4 of Asseman 2018 shows sequences of 200 time-steps (0.5 s each) in
   which cos/sin of the arm angles clearly decay in amplitude across the run.
   H is therefore not a conservation law for the real apparatus — it drifts
   downward. A symbolic-regression system that recovers the full algebraic
   form of H and reports a non-flat time series on IBM data is doing exactly
   what a physics-faithful regressor should do: the drift is data, not noise.
3. **Template-tracking error.** Sub-pixel tracker noise at ~0.2 px in 5×
   upscaled coordinates translates to an arm-angle noise of ~(0.2 / (l × 5 ×
   px_per_m)) rad per frame. With the centred second-difference estimator of
   θ̈ this noise is amplified by O(1/dt²) = 1.6 × 10⁵ — so
   `theta{1,2}_ddot_fd` are the noise-dominated channels in `data.csv`, and
   reference scores on `eom_theta1` / `eom_theta2` will be bounded from below
   by tracker noise, not by model mismatch. The `hamiltonian` target uses
   first differences only (O(1/dt)) and is much cleaner.
4. **Finite-difference scheme.** Centred differences are the default here
   because Asseman 2018 does not prescribe a derivative estimator. Coarser
   (one-sided) or smoother (Savitzky–Golay) schemes change the scores by
   order-of-magnitude factors and are documented in `data/README.md` as the
   right place to experiment. We deliberately did **not** apply any filter,
   so the raw noise floor is visible to the searcher.
5. **Launch-by-hand initial conditions.** Each of the 21 runs has an unknown
   initial angular velocity; the 21 trajectories are chaotic and cannot be
   stitched into a single coherent phase-space orbit. We ship a single video
   as `data.csv` by default (contiguous trajectory, ~17 500 rows) and the
   full concatenation as `data_all_videos.csv` for completeness.

## Column layout

`data/data.csv` has 16 columns (column 0 = output, columns 1..15 = inputs).
See `data/README.md` for the full schema; the short version is that column 0
is `theta1_ddot_fd` (output consumed by `ground_truth[eom_theta1]`), and the
two other ground-truth targets (`theta2_ddot_fd`, `H_mpernorm`) are included
as columns 5 and 6 for row-alignment.

Upstream columns (`x_red`, `y_red`, `x_green`, `y_green`, `x_blue`, `y_blue`,
all in 5×-upscaled pixels) are preserved unchanged as columns 7..12. These
are not consumed by any current ground-truth formula; they are available for
searchers that want to regress angles from pixel positions instead of using
the derived `theta1`, `theta2`.

## Data availability caveat

At the time this entry was authored, the IBM CDN host
`dax-cdn.cdn.appdomain.cloud` was unreachable from the environment. The
`data/download.sh` script is documented and correct, but no raw `data.csv`
has been generated, so `metadata.yaml` carries `reference_scores: null` for
every ground-truth entry. When the script is re-run on a network with CDN
access (or after placing the tarball in `data/` by hand), the `__main__`
block at the bottom of each `formulas/*.py` will compute the scores against
the full 17 500-row single-video `data.csv` and the 210 000-row
`data_all_videos.csv`.

## Contamination tier

**high.** The two-point-mass double-pendulum Lagrangian, Hamiltonian and
Euler–Lagrange equations of motion are in every graduate-level classical
mechanics textbook (Goldstein, Taylor, Landau–Lifshitz), the Wikipedia
article, hundreds of lecture notes and uncountable Python tutorials. A
modern LLM will have memorised the algebraic form verbatim. However:

- The specific **apparatus constants** (l₁ = 91 mm, l₂ = 70 mm) and the
  **specific data** (21 tracked videos from IBM's lab) have much lower
  memorisation risk — an LLM cannot recite l₁ = 91 mm without looking up
  Fig. 2b of Asseman 2018.
- The **real dissipation** (pivot friction + air drag) is *not* in any
  textbook because it depends on this particular bearing and these 19 mm
  disks. A searcher that reports `H = const` will score badly on this
  dataset; one that reports `H = H₀ exp(-γ t)` or similar is doing
  honest science.

This entry is therefore best used as a **Track C (red-team)** probe for
whether a searcher reproduces the Lagrangian from its own training set, and
simultaneously as a **Track B (real + scoreable)** test of whether it can
recover the right dissipation structure. Report results on this dataset
alongside results on genuinely low-contamination entries.

## Known limitations

- **Bob masses not in the paper.** All three formulas use `m₁ = m₂ = 1` kg;
  a searcher that recovers any ratio `m₁ : m₂` is making a legitimate claim
  that must be evaluated qualitatively (the dataset cannot pin the masses
  down without a separate calibration measurement). The overall scale of H
  is similarly unpinned.
- **No ground-truth dissipation model.** Asseman 2018 neither measures nor
  models the pivot friction. A reasonable extension to this entry would be
  a `dissipation` ground-truth with form `dH/dt = -α ω₁² - β ω₂²` and
  self-fitted coefficients; we have not written this formula here because
  no reliable source prescribes its form.
- **Single default video.** `data.csv` is video 0 out of 21; `ONLY_VIDEO=k`
  (0 ≤ k ≤ 20) picks another. `data_all_videos.csv` contains the full
  concatenation but is ~210 k rows and should not be used as the primary
  benchmark data without explicit opt-in.
- **Finite-difference noise floor.** See §Why the real-apparatus fit is
  imperfect, point 3.
- **License CDLA-Sharing-1.0.** Any re-publication of the data must carry
  the same licence and attribute Asseman, Kornuta & Ozcan (IBM Research AI,
  2018) — the tarball, every derivative `data.csv`, and this benchmark
  entry included.