Recognizing mathematical expressions using tree transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a robust and efficient system for recognizing typeset and handwritten mathematical notation. From a list of symbols with bounding boxes the system analyzes an expression in three successive passes. The Layout Pass constructs a Baseline Structure Tree (BST) describing the two-dimensional arrangement of input symbols. Reading order and operator dominance are used to allow efficient recognition of symbol layout even when symbols deviate greatly from their ideal positions. Next, the Lexical Pass produces a Lexed BST from the initial BST by grouping tokens comprised of multiple input symbols; these include decimal numbers, function names, and symbols comprised of nonoverlapping primitives such as "=". The Lexical Pass also labels vertical structures such as fractions and accents. The Lexed BST is translated into L/sup A/T/sub E/X. Additional processing, necessary for producing output for symbolic algebra systems, is carried out in the Expression Analysis Pass. The Lexed BST is translated into an Operator Tree, which describes the order and scope of operations in the input expression. The tree manipulations used in each pass are represented compactly using tree transformations. The compiler-like architecture of the system allows robust handling of unexpected input, increases the scalability of the system, and provides the groundwork for handling dialects of mathematical notation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".