Majid Bani-Yaghoub

Qiao Zhuang, Taorui Wang, Rita Wanjiku et al.

We extend our two-scale neural-network method for scalar singularly perturbed problems with one small parameter to dynamical systems with multiple small parameters. To accommodate multiple small parameters, we use a single effective scale parameter defined as the geometric mean of all parameters. We thus augment the network input with a scale-aware feature, enabling it to capture sharp solution transitions intrinsically. Numerical experiments across a range of dynamical systems demonstrate that the proposed framework can handle coupled systems with multiple and high-contrast small parameters and obtain satisfactory accuracy in capturing solution features induced by small parameters.

Rohan Thomas, Majid Bani-Yaghoub

Can Machine Learning (ML) autonomously recover interpretable mathematical structure from raw numerical data? We aim to answer this question using the classification of real-root configurations of polynomials up to degree five as a structured benchmark. We tested an extensive set of ML models, including decision trees, logistic regression, support vector machines, random forest, gradient boosting, XGBoost, symbolic regression, and neural networks. Neural networks achieved strong in-distribution performance on quintic classification using raw coefficients alone (84.3% + or - 0.9% balanced accuracy), whereas decision trees perform substantially worse (59.9% + or - 0.9\%). However, when provided with an explicit feature capturing sign changes at critical points, decision trees match neural performance (84.2% + or - 1.2%) and yield explicit classification rules. Knowledge distillation reveals that this single invariant accounts for 97.5% of the extracted decision structure. Out-of-distribution, data-efficiency, and noise robustness analyses indicate that neural networks learn continuous, data-dependent geometric approximations of the decision boundary rather than recovering scale-invariant symbolic rules. This distinction between geometric approximation and symbolic invariance explains the gap between predictive performance and interpretability observed across models. Although high predictive accuracy is attainable, we find no evidence that the evaluated ML models autonomously recover discrete, human-interpretable mathematical rules from raw coefficients. These results suggest that, in structured mathematical domains, interpretability may require explicit structural inductive bias rather than purely data-driven approximation.

Samuel Golladay, Majid Bani-Yaghoub

Understanding the limitations of Large Language Models, or LLMs, in mathematical reasoning has been the focus of several recent studies. However, the majority of these studies use the same datasets for benchmarking, which limits the generalizability of their findings and may not fully capture the diverse challenges present in mathematical tasks. The purpose of the present study is to analyze the performance of LLMs on underrepresented mathematics competition problems. We prompted three leading LLMs, namely GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-2.0-Flash, and DeepSeek-V3, with the Missouri Collegiate Mathematics Competition problems in the areas of Calculus, Analytic Geometry, and Discrete Mathematics. The LLMs responses were then compared to the known correct solutions in order to determine the accuracy of the LLM for each problem domain. We also analyzed the LLMs reasoning to explore patterns in errors across problem types and models. DeepSeek-V3 has the best performance in all three categories of Calculus, Analytic Geometry, and Discrete Mathematics, both in reasoning and correct final answers. All three LLMs exhibited notably weak performance in Geometry. The majority of errors made by DeepSeek-V3 were attributed to computational and logical mistakes, whereas GPT-4o-mini frequently exhibited logical and approach-related errors. Gemini, on the other hand, tended to struggle with incomplete reasoning and drawing rushed conclusions. In conclusion, evaluating LLMs on underrepresented mathematics competition datasets can provide deeper insights into their distinct error patterns and highlight ongoing challenges in structured reasoning, particularly within the domain of Geometry.