We extend a recently introduced Entropy-Optimal Manifold Clustering (EOMC) to allow for a joint simultaneous identification of subsets and subspaces of relevant features in nonstationary and nonlinear regression problems. It is shown that the proposed extension - that we coin as Entropy-Optimal Manifold Regression (EOMR) - allows a robust learning with linearly-scaling iteration and memory complexities. EOMR is compared to the most complete set of state-of-the-art tools from the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) that is available to the author, on the very challenging problems from chaotic and fluid dynamics: (i) on predicting the Lorenz-96 systems dynamics in strongly- and very-strongly chaotic regimes (with forcing parameter being $F=8$ and $F=12$, respectively); and, (ii) on a data from the Hasegawa-Wakatani model on the edge of the tokamak plasma. It is demonstrated that the proposed benchmarks (i) and (ii), indeed, are the very challenging problems for the state of the art ML and AI tools - since both the general-purpose gradient boosted random forests and deep neuronal networks, as well as transformer-based AI tools like TabPFN v.03 (more spezialised for large-dimensional small data learning problems) - result in orders of magnitude inferior root mean squared prediction errors, and orders of magnitude larger model complexities, when compared to the EOMR. For a Hasegawa-Wakatani example, EOMR distills a very simple entropy-optimal and skilful description of the leading Essential Orthogonal Function (EOF) dynamics, given by linear, causal and weakly-stationary autoregressive process described by just 8 parameters.
Forecasting chaotic dynamical systems such as the Lorenz attractor is notoriously difficult: small numerical errors are amplified exponentially over long autoregressive rollouts. We study seven recurrent and convolutional architectures for the AI-DEEDS 2026 Chaotic Systems Challenge: a vanilla LSTM, an LSTM with additive attention, a Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM), a BiLSTM trained with the Huber loss, a Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN), a CNN front-end followed by an LSTM, and a CNN front-end followed by a BiLSTM. All models share the same pre-processing, sequence length, and rollout procedure, isolating the contribution of each design choice. The challenge scores predictions on a 0-100 scale where higher is better. We obtain leaderboard scores between 45.72 and 58.81, with the BiLSTM trained with Huber loss being the strongest configuration. Two findings stand out: (i) adding additive attention to the unidirectional baseline degraded performance by over ten points, and (ii) prepending a CNN front-end to either an LSTM or a BiLSTM did not help and slightly hurt the score. Per-pair RMSE measurements confirm that the BiLSTM family generalizes better in the harder pairs (6-7), while the LSTM + Attention model collapses there (RMSE up to 8.94 on pair 6). We discuss why bidirectional context and a robust loss help in chaotic regimes while attention and CNN front-ends fail in this setting.