  This paper revisits datasets and evaluation criteria for Symbolic Regression
(SR), specifically focused on its potential for scientific discovery. Focused
on a set of formulas used in the existing datasets based on Feynman Lectures on
Physics, we recreate 120 datasets to discuss the performance of symbolic
regression for scientific discovery (SRSD). For each of the 120 SRSD datasets,
we carefully review the properties of the formula and its variables to design
reasonably realistic sampling ranges of values so that our new SRSD datasets
can be used for evaluating the potential of SRSD such as whether or not an SR
method can (re)discover physical laws from such datasets. We also create
another 120 datasets that contain dummy variables to examine whether SR methods
can choose necessary variables only. Besides, we propose to use normalized edit
distances (NED) between a predicted equation and the true equation trees for
addressing a critical issue that existing SR metrics are either binary or
errors between the target values and an SR model's predicted values for a given
input. We conduct benchmark experiments on our new SRSD datasets using various
representative SR methods. The experimental results show that we provide a more
realistic performance evaluation, and our user study shows that the NED
correlates with human judges significantly more than an existing SR metric.
