MathFormer: Testing whether symbolic math is pattern matching or reasoning [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Repo link and results - https://github.com/Abhinand20/MathFormer
Task: Given a factorized expression like (7-3*z)*(-5*z-9), predict the expanded form -> 15*z\*2-8\*z-63
Key takeaway: A tiny (4M param) seq2seq model trained with no math knowledge reaches ~98.6% accuracy on symbolic math tasks, suggesting it learns structural token transformations rather than any notion of operators or variables. Scaling this up could help explain why LLMs appear to “reason” mathematically, when they may actually be performing large-scale structured pattern completion.
How does RL change this paradigm given the inherent architecture is still based on attention?
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]
Aug 14
-
Building text to ASCII diffusion model , need advice and guidance [P]
Aug 14
-
A collision-entropy floor for watermark/retrieval AI-text detection. Looking for a sanity check before I take this further [D]
Aug 14
-
Are supervised and unsupervised learning still relevant today? [D]
Aug 14
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.