Tree-Based Deep Learning for Ranking Symbolic Integration Algorithms
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Symbolic indefinite integration in Computer Algebra Systems such as Maple involves selecting the most effective algorithm from multiple available methods. Not all methods will succeed for a given problem, and when several do, the results, though mathematically equivalent, can differ greatly in presentation complexity. Traditionally, this choice has been made with minimal consideration of the problem instance, leading to inefficiencies. We present a machine learning (ML) approach using tree-based deep learning models within a two-stage architecture: first identifying applicable methods for a given instance, then ranking them by predicted output complexity. Furthermore, we find representing mathematical expressions as tree structures significantly improves performance over sequence-based representations, and our two-stage framework outperforms alternative ML formulations. Using a diverse dataset generated by six distinct data generators, our models achieve nearly 90% accuracy in selecting the optimal method on a 70,000 example holdout test set. On an independent out-of-distribution benchmark from Maple's internal test suite, our tree transformer model maintains strong generalisation, outperforming Maple's built-in selector and prior ML approaches. These results highlight the critical role of data representation and problem framing in ML for symbolic computation, and we expect our methodology to generalise effectively to similar optimisation problems in mathematical software.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2025.
Builds on
21 of 40 references.
References · 21
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2014Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translationcited by 4,057
- 2015Improved Semantic Representations From Tree-Structured Long Short-Term Memory Networkscited by 306
- 2019Deep Learning for Symbolic Mathematicscited by 270
- 2022End-to-end symbolic regression with transformerscited by 203
- 2019Tree Transformer: Integrating Tree Structures into Self-Attentioncited by 68
- 2023ODEFormer: Symbolic Regression of Dynamical Systems with Transformerscited by 62
- 2021Symbolic Brittleness in Sequence Models: on Systematic Generalization in Symbolic Mathematicscited by 27
- 2019Can Neural Networks Learn Symbolic Rewriting?cited by 12
- 2019The Use of Deep Learning for Symbolic Integration: A Review of (Lample and Charton, 2019)cited by 11
- 2023Algebraic Positional Encodingscited by 10
9 more
- 2023Explainable AI Insights for Symbolic Computation: A case study on selecting the variable ordering for cylindrical algebraic decompositioncited by 7
- 2023Learning to Compute Gr"obner Basescited by 7
- 2024Learning Guided Automated Reasoning: A Brief Surveycited by 7
- 2018Using Machine Learning to Improve Cylindrical Algebraic Decompositioncited by 6
- 2023Generating Elementary Integrable Expressionscited by 4
- 2024Symbolic Integration Algorithm Selection with Machine Learning: LSTMs vs Tree LSTMscited by 3
- 2024Lessons on Datasets and Paradigms in Machine Learning for Symbolic Computation: A Case Study on CADcited by 2
- 2024The Liouville Generator for Producing Integrable Expressionscited by 2
- 2024Transformers to Predict the Applicability of Symbolic Integration Routinescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.