Verifying DLMF with Maple and Mathematica: Difference between revisions

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Undo revision 58575 by Admin (talk)
Tag: Undo
 
(33 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page presents the results of the publication: ''Comparative Verification of the Digital Library of Mathematical Functions and Computer Algebra Systems''.
This wiki provides an overview of LaCASt, our LaTeX to Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) Translator, and its translations of the [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ Digital Library of Mathematical Functions (DLMF)].
Specifically, we provide access to the translations for Maple and Mathematica. Additionally, each translation was verified with symbolic and numeric evaluation techniques.
In the following, we present the results of our translations and evaluations.
 
For legal inquiries, use the methods described at https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/.


= Bug Reports =
= Bug Reports =
Line 10: Line 14:
= DLMF Translations and Results =
= DLMF Translations and Results =


In the following, we present the translations of the [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ DLMF] equations to the CAS [https://www.maplesoft.com/ Maple] and [https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/ Mathematica].
This section explains the data you can access. Below, you will find a large table that shows the overall results of translations, symbolic and numeric verifications, as well as a number of errors and aborted calculations for each DLMF chapter. Before you move on to investigating the results, please have a look at how to read the data first.
 
== How to read the data? ==
 
The data on this website can be considered as an extension of the [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ DLMF] but not a copy. Some labeled equations in the DLMF do not appear in this data because they were skipped or caused translation errors in both systems (Maple and Mathematica). In addition, the result tables on this website do not provide context! For checking the context, every equation in our dataset is linked directly to the equation in the DLMF. You can access the original DLMF equation by clicking on the label in the most-left column in the result tables.
 
You can access the results by clicking on a particular chapter below. This will load a page showing links to each section. Red links indicate that this section is empty, i.e., no results are available for that section. Clicking on a blue-inked link will load the result table for that section. Below you see an example of such a table with just two equations from different chapters. As you can see, the first entry [https://dlmf.nist.gov/4.12.E1 4.12.E1] is grayed out. This happens when the entry was skipped due to missing semantic macros in the source of the test case (flagged as <code>Skipped - no semantic math</code>). You can see the actual semantic LaTeX source of every test case below the equation. Since most of these cases are not translated properly by LCT, we skipped them directly, i.e., they were not further processed for symbolic or numeric evaluations. In fact, those cases have not even been translated into our pipeline. However, we added the translations just for our result tables because they may provide further interesting insights into the translation process.


{| class="wikitable sortable"
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
The most-right columns in the table show the numeric evaluation results. If an equation was not numerically verified, it shows <code>Failed [x/y]</code> where <math>x</math> is the number of failed calculations and <math>y</math> is the number of all test calculations for this test case. As you can see in the second entry below [https://dlmf.nist.gov/11.5.E2 11.5.E2], 15 test calculations failed out of 25, so 10 were successful. When you click on the little <code>Expand</code>, we show the first couple of results for the failed test cases. Since the tables are already very large, we cannot show all failed test calculations.
 
Clicking on <code>expand</code> for the second entry in our example table below, we see the test result and the test values that produced this result. As explained in the paper, the calculation was simply performed on the difference of the left- and right-hand sides of the equation <code>LHS - RHS</code>. Further explanations on why this test failed can be found in the paper.
 
<div class="toccolours">Failed [15 / 25]
<syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>Result: Complex[0.9495382353861556, -0.46093572348323536]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 1.5]}</syntaxhighlight>
<syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>Result: Complex[0.7706973036767981, -0.20650772012904173]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 0.5]}</syntaxhighlight>... skip entries to safe data</div>
</div>
<br>
 
<div style="width: 100%; overflow: auto;">
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin: 0;"
|-
|-
! DLMF !! Formula !! Translations<br>Maple !! Translations<br>Mathematica !! Symbolic Evaluation<br>Maple !! Symbolic Evaluation<br>Mathematica !! Numeric Evaluation<br>Maple !! Numeric Evaluation<br>Mathematica
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | DLMF  
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Formula  
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Constraints
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Maple
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Mathematica
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Symbolic<br>Maple
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Symbolic<br>Mathematica
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Numeric<br>Maple
! scope="col" style="position: sticky; top: 0;" | Numeric<br>Mathematica
|-
|-
| [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ DLMF] || 6,623 || 4,114 (62.1%) || 4,713 (71.2%) || 1,084 (26.3%) || 1,235 (26.2%) || 698 (26.7%) || 784 (22.6%)
|- style="background: #dfe6e9;"
| [https://dlmf.nist.gov/4.12.E1 4.12.E1] || [[Item:Q1629|<math>\phi(x+1) = e^{\phi(x)}</math>]]<br><syntaxhighlight lang="tex" style="font-size: 75%; background: inherit;" inline>\phi(x+1) = e^{\phi(x)}</syntaxhighlight> || <math>-1 < x, x < \infty</math> || <div class="mw-highlight mw-highlight-lang-mathematica mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr"><pre style="background: inherit;">phi(x + 1) = exp(phi(x))</pre></div> || <div class="mw-highlight mw-highlight-lang-mathematica mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr"><pre style="background: inherit;">\[Phi][x + 1] == Exp[\[Phi][x]]</pre></div> || Skipped - no semantic math || Skipped - no semantic math || - || -
|-
|-
| [https://dlmf.nist.gov/11.5.E2 11.5.E2] || [[Item:Q3969|<math>\StruveK{\nu}@{z} = \frac{2(\tfrac{1}{2}z)^{\nu}}{\sqrt{\pi}\EulerGamma@{\nu+\tfrac{1}{2}}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-zt}(1+t^{2})^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}\diff{t}</math>]]<br><syntaxhighlight lang="tex" style="font-size: 75%;" inline>\StruveK{\nu}@{z} = \frac{2(\tfrac{1}{2}z)^{\nu}}{\sqrt{\pi}\EulerGamma@{\nu+\tfrac{1}{2}}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-zt}(1+t^{2})^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}\diff{t}</syntaxhighlight> || <math>\realpart@@{z} > 0, \realpart@@{(\nu+\tfrac{1}{2})} > 0, \realpart@@{(\nu+k+1)} > 0, \realpart@@{((-\nu)+k+1)} > 0, \realpart@@{(n+\nu+\tfrac{3}{2})} > 0</math> || <syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>StruveH(nu, z) - BesselY(nu, z) = (2*((1)/(2)*z)^(nu))/(sqrt(Pi)*GAMMA(nu +(1)/(2)))*int(exp(- z*t)*(1 + (t)^(2))^(nu -(1)/(2)), t = 0..infinity)</syntaxhighlight> || <syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>StruveH[\[Nu], z] - BesselY[\[Nu], z] == Divide[2*(Divide[1,2]*z)^\[Nu],Sqrt[Pi]*Gamma[\[Nu]+Divide[1,2]]]*Integrate[Exp[- z*t]*(1 + (t)^(2))^(\[Nu]-Divide[1,2]), {t, 0, Infinity}, GenerateConditions->None]</syntaxhighlight> || Successful || Successful || - || <div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">Failed [15 / 25]<div class="mw-collapsible-content"><syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>Result: Complex[0.9495382353861556, -0.46093572348323536]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 1.5]}</syntaxhighlight><br><syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>Result: Complex[0.7706973036767981, -0.20650772012904173]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 0.5]}</syntaxhighlight><br>... skip entries to safe data</div></div>
|}
|}
</div>
As a summary, here is an explanation for every column of the result tables.
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
; DLMF : Contains the equation label as a link to the actual equation in the DLMF. Click on the label if you need to check the context of a formula in the DLMF.
; Formula : Contains the rendered formula and the actual semantic LaTeX source (sometimes also referred to as content-tex). More information about the semantic (or content) LaTeX can be found in <ref name="Abdou2020">Abdou Youssef and Bruce R. Miller, "A Contextual and Labeled Math-Dataset Derived from NIST's DLMF." In: Intelligent Computer Mathematics (CICM) 2020: 324-330. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53518-6\_25 10.1007/978-3-030-53518-6_25]</ref>
; Constraints : This shows the constraints that LCT has generated by analyzing the definitions of the functions that are included in the equation. This also includes the constraints that are directly attached to a test case. For example, [https://dlmf.nist.gov/11.5.E2 11.5.E2] only has the constraint <math>\realpart@@{z} > 0</math>. LCT followed the definitions of the involved functions and identified several more constraints for this test case. A detailed explanation of this process was given in the paper. Note, however, that this list of constraints does not contain the manually defined global constraints that we applied for all test cases (as shown in Table 3 in the paper). This way, the result tables only show what LCT generated and applied for the numeric evaluations.
; Maple : The translation to Maple
; Mathematica : The translation to Mathematica
; Symbolic (Maple / Mathematica) : The result of the symbolic evaluation. If this was skipped, no calculations have been performed on the test case.
; Numeric (Maple / Mathematica) : The result of the numeric evaluation as explained above and in the paper.
</div>


By clicking on a chapter of the [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ DLMF] below, you will see a large table that looks like this:
== Links to the data ==
 
In the following, we present an overview of the translations of the [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ DLMF] equations to the CAS [https://www.maplesoft.com/ Maple] and [https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/ Mathematica].


{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
|-
! DLMF !! Formula !! Maple !! Mathematica !! Symbolic<br>Maple !! Symbolic<br>Mathematica !! Numeric<br>Maple !! Numeric<br>Mathematica
! DLMF !! Formula !! Translations<br>Maple !! Translations<br>Mathematica !! Symbolic Evaluation<br>Maple !! Symbolic Evaluation<br>Mathematica !! Numeric Evaluation<br>Maple !! Numeric Evaluation<br>Mathematica
|-
|-
| Link to DLMF || Formula || <code>Translation to Maple</code> || <code>Translation to Mathematica</code> || Symbolic Result in Maple || Symbolic Result in Mathematica || Numeric Result in Maple || Numeric Result in Mathematica
| [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ DLMF] || 6,545 || 4,114 (62.9%) || 4,713 (72.0%) || 1,084 (26.3%) || 1,235 (26.2%) || 698 (26.7%) || 784 (22.6%)
|-
|-
|}
|}


The result tables do not contain every equation with a label in the [https://dlmf.nist.gov/ DLMF] since quite a few equations were skipped (see explanations in the paper).
The following links provide access to all results for each DLMF chapter. This will show the sections in each chapter. Please notice that many sections in a chapter might be empty (indicated by a red link color instead of a blue link). This happens when all formulae in a section have been skipped or the case analyzer was not able to parse the expression properly. In some cases, the section simply did not contain any formula.


== Translations and Evaluations of the Digital Library of Mathematical Functions ==
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
# [[Results of Algebraic and Analytic Methods|Algebraic and Analytic Methods]]
# [[Results of Algebraic and Analytic Methods|Algebraic and Analytic Methods]]
Line 43: Line 93:
# [[Results of Incomplete Gamma and Related Functions|Incomplete Gamma and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of Incomplete Gamma and Related Functions|Incomplete Gamma and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of Airy and Related Functions|Airy and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of Airy and Related Functions|Airy and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of Bessel Functions I|Bessel Functions I]] & [[Results of Bessel Functions II|Bessel Functions II]]
# [[Results of Bessel Functions|Bessel Functions]]
# [[Results of Struve and Related Functions|Struve and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of Struve and Related Functions|Struve and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of Parabolic Cylinder Functions|Parabolic Cylinder Functions]]
# [[Results of Parabolic Cylinder Functions|Parabolic Cylinder Functions]]
Line 52: Line 102:
# [[Results of q-Hypergeometric and Related Functions|''q''-Hypergeometric and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of q-Hypergeometric and Related Functions|''q''-Hypergeometric and Related Functions]]
# [[Results of Orthogonal Polynomials|Orthogonal Polynomials]]
# [[Results of Orthogonal Polynomials|Orthogonal Polynomials]]
# [[Results of Elliptic Integrals I|Elliptic Integrals I]] & [[Results of Elliptic Integrals II|Elliptic Integrals II]]
# [[Results of Elliptic Integrals|Elliptic Integrals]]
# [[Results of Theta Functions|Theta Functions]]
# [[Results of Theta Functions|Theta Functions]]
# [[Results of Multidimensional Theta Functions|Multidimensional Theta Functions]]
# [[Results of Multidimensional Theta Functions|Multidimensional Theta Functions]]
Line 72: Line 122:
</div>
</div>


{| class="wikitable sortable"
=== Examples ===
! 2C !! Translations !! Symbol Success !! Percent !! Symbolic Fails !! Numeric Success !! Percent !! Numeric Fail !! [Partially / Totally] Failed !! Abortion !! Error
 
To provide you a starting point to investigate the data above, we suggest [[15.4|Hypergeometric Function - 15.4 Special Cases]]. For example, [https://dlmf.nist.gov/15.4#E28 15.4.E28]
:<math>\hyperF@{a}{b}{\tfrac{1}{2}a+\tfrac{1}{2}b+\tfrac{1}{2}}{\tfrac{1}{2}} = \sqrt{\pi}\frac{\EulerGamma@{\tfrac{1}{2}a+\tfrac{1}{2}b+\tfrac{1}{2}}}{\EulerGamma@{\tfrac{1}{2}a+\tfrac{1}{2}}\EulerGamma@{\tfrac{1}{2}b+\tfrac{1}{2}}}</math>
was successfully translated to Maple and Mathematica and verified symbolically and numerically in both systems despite the complexity of such a test case.
 
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Maple !! Mathematica
|-
| <syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>hypergeom([a, b], [(1)/(2)*a +(1)/(2)*b +(1)/(2)], (1)/(2)) = sqrt(Pi)*(GAMMA((1)/(2)*a +(1)/(2)*b +(1)/(2)))/(GAMMA((1)/(2)*a +(1)/(2))*GAMMA((1)/(2)*b +(1)/(2)))</syntaxhighlight> || <syntaxhighlight lang=mathematica>Hypergeometric2F1[a, b, Divide[1,2]*a +Divide[1,2]*b +Divide[1,2], Divide[1,2]] == Sqrt[Pi]*Divide[Gamma[Divide[1,2]*a +Divide[1,2]*b +Divide[1,2]],Gamma[Divide[1,2]*a +Divide[1,2]]*Gamma[Divide[1,2]*b +Divide[1,2]]]</syntaxhighlight>
|}
 
Another interesting section might be [[26.3|Combinatorial Analysis - 26.3 Lattice Paths: Binomial Coefficients]]. All expressions are relatively straight-forward. Nonetheless, [https://dlmf.nist.gov/26.3#E8 23.3.E8]
:<math>\binom{m}{n} = \sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{m-n-1+k}{k}</math>
failed numerically. This test case failed because Mathematica simplified the right-hand side directly to <math>\frac{(1+n) {m \choose n+1}}{m-n}</math> which would result in a division by zero for <math>m = n</math>. Indeed, our result table show that the test evaluation failed for <math>m=n=1</math> and <math>m=n=2</math> (the last case <math>m=n=3</math> was omitted because we only show the first two failed calculations to reduce the size of the result tables). This simple example shows the challenge of interpreting the data and working with computer algebra systems.
 
== Translations and Evaluations Overview Table ==
 
{| class="wikitable"
! !! Meaning
|-
! 2C
| Chapter Code
|-
! S
| Successful
|-
! %
| Percentage
|-
! F
| Fail
|-
! P/T
| Partially / Totally Failed
|-
! A
| Aborted
|-
! E
| Errors
|-
! Base
| The baseline performance of the translator
|-
! Maple
| The CAS Maple 2020
|-
! Mathematica
| The CAS Mathematica
|}
 
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: right;"
! colspan="5" | 
! colspan="6" | Symbolic
! colspan="12" | Numeric
|-
! colspan="2" | Formulae
! colspan="3" | Translations
! colspan="3" | Maple
! colspan="3" | Mathematica
! colspan="6" | Maple
! colspan="6" | Mathematica
|-
! 2C !! Total !! Base !! Maple !! Math !! S !! % !! F !! S !! % !! F !! S !! % !! F !! [P/T] !! A !! E !! S !! % !! F !! [P/T] !! A !!
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"|  1. [[Results of Algebraic and Analytic Methods|AL]]
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 227
||  60 || 102
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 103
||  36 || 35.3%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  60
||  34 || 33.0%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  69
||  14 || 23.3% ||  35 || [ 12 /  23] ||  7
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  4
||  14 || 20.3% ||  40 || [  9 /  31] ||  11 ||  4
|-
|-
| 1. [[Results of AL|AL]] || 103 ||  34 || (33.0\%) ||  69 ||  14 || (20.3\%) ||  40 || [ 10 30] || 11 ||  4   
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 2. [[Results of Asymptotic Approximations|AS]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 136
||  33 || 65
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 65
||   6 ||  9.2%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 47
||  6 ||  9.2%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 59
||  7 || 14.9% ||  33 || [ 5 28] ||   1
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  5
||  4 || 6.8% ||  38 || [  6 /  32] ||  7 ||  9
|-
|-
| 2. [[Results of AS|AS]] ||  65 ||  6 || ( 9.2\%) ||  59 ||  4 || ( 6.8\%) ||  38 || [  6 32] ||  7 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 3. [[Results of Numerical Methods|NM]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  53
||  36 ||  40
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 40
||  6 || 15.0%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  31
||  5 || 12.5%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  35
||  1 ||  3.2% ||  27 || [  9 /  18] ||  0
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 2
||   0 ||  0.0% ||  29 || [  8 21] ||  6 ||  0
|-
|-
| 3. [[Results of NM|NM]] || 40 ||   5 || (12.5\%) ||  35 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) || 29 || [ 8 21] ||  6 ||  0
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 4. [[Results of Elementary Functions|EF]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 569
|| 353 || 494
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 564
|| 270 || 54.7%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 221
|| 304 || 53.9%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 260
|| 88 || 39.8% || 126 || [ 64 / 62] ||  0  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |   6
|| 110 || 42.3% || 146 || [ 55 91] ||  2 ||  0  
|-
|-
| 4. [[Results of EF|EF]] || 564 || 304 || (53.9\%) || 260 || 110 || (42.3\%) || 146 || [ 55 91] ||  2 ||  0  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 5. [[Results of Gamma Function|GA]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 144
|| 38 || 130
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 139
||  41 || 31.5%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  76
||  65 || 46.8%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 74
|| 39 || 51.3% || 25 || [ 12 13] ||  4
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 8
||  30 || 40.5% ||  20 || [  9 /  11] || 13 ||  9
|-
|-
| 5. [[Results of GA|GA]] || 139 ||  65 || (46.8\%) ||  74 ||  30 || (40.5\%) ||  20 || [  9 11] || 13 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 6. [[Results of Exponential, Logarithmic, Sine, and Cosine Integrals|EX]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 107
||  21 ||  56
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  77
||  13 || 23.2%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  43
||  18 || 23.4%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 59
||  10 || 23.2% ||  31 || [ 13 /  18] ||  0
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  2
||  23 || 39.0% ||  32 || [  6 26] ||   4 ||  0
|-
|-
| 6. [[Results of EX|EX]] ||  77 ||  18 || (23.4\%) ||  59 ||  23 || (39.0\%) ||  32 || [ 6 26] ||  4 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 7. [[Results of Error Functions, Dawson’s and Fresnel Integrals|ER]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 149
||  35 || 101
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 120
||  52 || 51.5%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 47
||  45 || 37.5%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 75
||  21 || 44.7% ||  23 || [ 10 /  13] ||  2
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  1
||  21 || 28.0% ||  43 || [ 13 30] ||  9 ||  1
|-
|-
| 7. [[Results of ER|ER]] || 120 ||  45 || (37.5\%) ||  75 ||  21 || (28.0\%) ||  43 || [ 13 30] ||  9 ||  1  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 8. [[Results of Incomplete Gamma and Related Functions|IG]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 204
||  84 || 160
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 163
||  51 || 31.9%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 102
||  65 || 39.9%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 98
||  27 || 26.5% ||  61 || [ 20 41] ||  9  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 5
||  22 || 22.4% ||  44 || [ 19 /  25] ||  16 || 15
|-
|-
| 8. [[Results of IG|IG]] || 163 ||  65 || (39.9\%) ||  98 ||  22 || (22.4\%) ||  44 || [ 19 25] ||  16 ||  15  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 9. [[Results of Airy and Related Functions|AI]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 235
||  36 || 180
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 179
||  54 || 30.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 124
||  69 || 38.5%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 110
||  34 || 27.4% ||  75 || [ 41 34] ||  4
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  8
||  30 || 27.3% ||  58 || [ 38 / 20] ||  14 ||  7
|-
|-
| 9. [[Results of AI|AI]] || 179 ||  69 || (38.5\%) || 110 ||  30 || (27.3\%) ||  58 || [ 38 20] ||  14 ||   7  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 10. [[Results of Bessel Functions|BS]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 653
|| 143 || 392
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 486
||  80 || 20.4%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 209
|| 115 || 23.7%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 371
||  86 || 41.1% ||  59 || [ 41 18] ||  52
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  12
||  90 || 24.2% || 151 || [ 57 /  94] ||  92 ||  18
|-
|-
| 10. [[Results of BS|BS]] || 486 || 115 || (23.7\%) || 371 ||  90 || (24.2\%) || 151 || [ 58 93] ||  92 ||  18  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 11. [[Results of Struve and Related Functions|ST]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 124
||  48 || 121
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 112
||  39 || 32.2%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 73
|| 36 || 32.1%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 76
||  25 || 34.2% || 40 || [ 14 26] ||  3
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  5
||  21 || 27.6% ||  33 || [  8 /  25] ||  10 || 11
|-
|-
| 11. [[Results of ST|ST]] || 112 ||  36 || (32.1\%) ||  76 ||  21 || (27.6\%) ||  33 || [  8 25] ||  10 || 11 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 12. [[Results of Parabolic Cylinder Functions|PC]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 106
||  33 || 79
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  90
||  25 || 31.6%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 50
||  18 || 20.0%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  72
||  15 || 30.0% ||  24 || [ 15 /  9] ||  11
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  0
||  13 || 18.0% || 43 || [ 15 28] ||  12 ||   3
|-
|-
| 12. [[Results of PC|PC]] ||  90 ||  18 || (20.0\%) ||  72 ||  13 || (18.0\%) ||  43 || [ 15 28] ||  12 ||   3  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 13. [[Results of Confluent Hypergeometric Functions|CH]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 260
|| 126 || 252
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 254
||  75 || 29.8%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 143
||  69 || 27.2%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 185
||  14 || 9.8% ||  90 || [ 55 /  35] ||  37
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  2
||  23 || 12.4% ||  95 || [ 59 36] ||  45 ||  21
|-
|-
| 13. [[Results of CH|CH]] || 254 ||  69 || (27.2\%) || 185 ||  23 || (12.4\%) ||  95 || [ 59 /  36] ||  45 ||  21  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 14. [[Results of Legendre and Related Functions|LE]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 238
|| 166 || 230
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 229
||  30 || 13.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 163
||  30 || 13.1%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 199
||  40 || 24.5% ||  93 || [ 57 /  36] ||  18
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  12
||  59 || 29.6% || 92 || [ 54 /  38] ||  41 ||  5
|-
|-
| 14. [[Results of LE|LE]] || 229 ||  30 || (13.1\%) || 199 ||  59 || (29.6\%) ||  92 || [ 54 38] ||  41 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 15. [[Results of Hypergeometric Function|HY]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 206
|| 148 || 198
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 197
||  46 || 23.2%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 115
||  53 || 26.9%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 144
||  17 || 14.8% || 52 || [ 34 /  18] ||  23
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  23
||  23 || 16.0% ||  77 || [ 52 25] ||  29 ||  6
|-
|-
| 15. [[Results of HY|HY]] || 197 ||  53 || (26.9\%) || 144 ||  23 || (16.0\%) ||  77 || [ 52 / 25] || 29 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 16. [[Results of Generalized Hypergeometric Functions and Meijer G-Function|GH]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 53
||  20 ||  23
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 25
||  3 || 13.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 16
||  2 ||  8.0%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  23  
||  1 || 6.2% ||  9 || [  8 /  1] ||  6
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  0  
||  1 ||  4.3% ||  10 || [ 7 /   3] ||   9 ||  2
|-
|-
| 16. [[Results of GH|GH]] ||  25 ||  2 || ( 8.0\%) ||  23 ||  1 || ( 4.3\%) ||  10 || [ 7 3] ||   9 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 17. [[Results of q-Hypergeometric and Related Functions|QH]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 175
||  1 ||  53
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 124
||  23 || 43.4%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  24
||  6 || 4.8%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 118
||  0 ||  0.0% ||   0 || [ 0 /  0] ||  1  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  23
||  13 || 11.0% ||  57 || [ 52 5] || 39 ||  5
|-
|-
| 17. [[Results of QH|QH]] || 124 ||   6 || ( 4.8\%) || 118 ||  13 || (11.0\%) ||  57 || [ 52 /   5] ||  39 ||   5  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 18. [[Results of Orthogonal Polynomials|OP]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 468
|| 132 || 235
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 288
||  65 || 27.6%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 148
|| 101 || 35.1%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 185
||  67 || 45.3% || 50 || [ 32 / 18] || 14
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  17
||  45 || 24.3% ||  68 || [ 31 / 37] ||  52 ||  12
|-
|-
| 18. [[Results of OP|OP]] || 288 || 101 || (35.1\%) || 185 ||  47 || (25.4\%) || 66 || [ 29 37] ||  52 ||  12  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 19. [[Results of Elliptic Integrals|EL]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 516
|| 103 || 252
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 416
||  39 || 15.5%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 192
|| 51 || 12.2%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 365
||  18 || 9.4% || 123 || [ 44 79] ||  34
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  17
||  18 ||  4.9% || 264 || [ 49 / 215] ||  61 || 15
|-
|-
| 19. [[Results of EL|EL]] || 416 ||  51 || (12.2\%) || 365 ||  18 || ( 4.9\%) || 264 || [ 49 / 215] ||  61 ||  15   
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 20. [[Results of Theta Functions|TH]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 128
||  52 || 98
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  98
||  10 || 10.2%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  68
||  1 || 1.0%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 97
||   0 ||  0.0% || 32 || [ 17 / 15] ||  20
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  16
|| 33 || 34.0% ||  40 || [ 25 / 15] || 24 ||  0
|-
|-
| 20. [[Results of TH|TH]] || 98 ||   1 || ( 1.0\%) || 97 || 33 || (34.0\%) || 40 || [ 25 /  15] || 24 ||   0 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 21. [[Results of Multidimensional Theta Functions|MT]]  
|style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 32
|| 0 || 0
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 0  
|| - || -
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | -
|| - || -
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | -
|| - || - || - || - || -
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | -
|| - || - || - || - || - || -
|-
|-
| 21. [[Results of MT|MT]] ||   0 ||   - ||       - ||   - ||   - ||       - ||   - ||  [ - / - ]  ||  - || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 22. [[Results of Jacobian Elliptic Functions|JA]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 264
|| 115 || 232
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 238
|| 46 || 19.8%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 176
|| 30 || 12.6%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 206
||  20 || 11.4% || 116 || [ 25 / 91] || 36
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 4
||  22 || 10.7% || 131 || [ 39 /  92] ||  51 ||  0
|-
|-
| 22. [[Results of JA|JA]] || 238 ||  30 || (12.6\%) || 206 ||  22 || (10.7\%) || 131 || [ 39 92] || 51 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 23. [[Results of Weierstrass Elliptic and Modular Functions|WE]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 164
||  7 ||  19
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  34
||  1 ||  5.3%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  16
||  4 || 11.8%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  30  
||  0 || 0.0% || 14 || [  2 / 12] ||  1
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  1
||  2 || 6.7% || 23 || [ 9 14] ||   2 ||  3
|-
|-
| 23. [[Results of WE|WE]] ||  34 ||   4 || (11.8\%) ||  30 ||   2 || ( 6.7\%) ||  23 || [ 9 14] ||  2 ||  3  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 24. [[Results of Bernoulli and Euler Polynomials|BP]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 175
||  31 || 117
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 148
||  15 || 12.8%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 101
||  23 || 15.5%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 125
||  67 || 66.3% ||  32 || [ 19 13] ||  1
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 1
||  78 || 62.4% ||  33 || [ 22 /  11] || 14 ||  0
|-
|-
| 24. [[Results of BP|BP]] || 148 ||  23 || (15.5\%) || 125 ||  78 || (62.4\%) ||  33 || [ 22 /  11] ||  14 ||  0  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 25. [[Results of Zeta and Related Functions|ZE]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 154
||  28 || 124
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 120
||  19 || 15.3%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  90
||  48 || 40.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 72
||  43 || 47.8% ||  29 || [ 18 /  11] ||  10
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 8
||  22 || 30.5% ||  22 || [  6 /  16] || 22 ||  3
|-
|-
| 25. [[Results of ZE|ZE]] || 120 ||  48 || (40.0\%) ||  72 ||  22 || (30.5\%) ||  22 || [  6 16] || 22 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 26. [[Results of Combinatorial Analysis|CM]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 136
||  31 ||  78
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 87
||  20 || 25.6%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 50
||  19 || 21.8%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  68
||  30 || 60.0% ||  11 || [  8 /   3] ||  2
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  7
|| 44 || 64.7% ||  18 || [ 10 /  8] ||   5 ||  1
|-
|-
| 26. [[Results of CM|CM]] ||  87 ||  19 || (21.8\%) ||  68 || 44 || (64.7\%) || 18 || [ 10 8] ||  5 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 27. [[Results of Functions of Number Theory|NT]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  79
||  5 ||  26
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  15
||  3 || 11.5%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 17
||  6 || 40.0%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  9
||   2 || 11.8% ||   6 || [ 3 /  3] ||  0
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |   8
||  3 || 33.3% ||   6 || [ 3 3] ||  0 ||  0
|-
|-
| 27. [[Results of NT|NT]] ||  15 ||  6 || (40.0\%) ||   9 ||  3 || (33.3\%) ||  6 || [  3 /   3] ||   0 ||   0  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 28. [[Results of Mathieu Functions and Hill’s Equation|MA]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 267
||  52 ||  97
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 110
||  7 || 7.2%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | 80
||  7 || 6.4%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 103
||  6 ||  7.5% ||  32 || [ 12 / 20] ||  26
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  15
||  3 ||  2.9% ||  48 || [ 13 / 35] || 33 ||  17
|-
|-
| 28. [[Results of MA|MA]] || 110 ||  7 || ( 6.4\%) || 103 ||  3 || ( 2.9\%) ||  48 || [ 13 35] ||  33 ||  17  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 29. [[Results of Lamé Functions|LA]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 111
||  11 ||  23
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  22
||  0 ||  0.0%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  21
||  0 || 0.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 22
||  0 || 0.0% ||  19 || [ 2 17] ||  0
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  2
||  0 ||  0.0% ||  21 || [ 1 / 20] ||  0 ||  1
|-
|-
| 29. [[Results of LA|LA]] ||  22 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) ||  22 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) ||  21 || [  1 20] ||  0 ||  1
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 30. [[Results of Spheroidal Wave Functions|SW]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 71
||  14 ||  19
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  26
||  0 ||  0.0%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  18
||  0 || 0.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 26
||  0 || 0.0% ||  18 || [  5 13] ||  0  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  0
||  0 ||  0.0% ||  19 || [  2 /  17] ||  5 ||  1  
|-
|-
| 30. [[Results of SW|SW]] ||  26 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) ||  26 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) || 19 || [  2 / 17] ||  5 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 31. [[Results of Heun Functions|HE]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 35
||  29 ||  22
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  15
||  5 || 22.7%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  13
||  2 || 13.3%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  13
||  2 || 15.4% ||  10 || [  0 /  10] ||  0
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  1
||  0 || 0.0% ||   8 || [  0 /   8] ||  5 ||  0
|-
|-
| 31. [[Results of HE|HE]] ||  15 ||  2 || (13.3\%) ||  13 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) ||   8 || [  0 /   8] ||  5 || 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 32. [[Results of Painlevé Transcendents|PT]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 67
||  43 ||  57
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  57
||  3 ||  5.3%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  51
||  3 || 5.3%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  54
||  1 ||  2.0% ||  44 || [  7 /  37] ||  4
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  2
||  0 || 0.0% || 41 || [  2 / 39] ||  8 ||  5
|-
|-
| 32. [[Results of PT|PT]] ||  57 ||  3 || ( 5.3\%) ||  54 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) ||  41 || [  2 / 39] ||  8 ||  5  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 33. [[Results of Coulomb Functions|CW]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 108
||  21 ||  14
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 11
||  1 || 7.1%  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" 13
||  0 || 0.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 11
||  0 ||  0.0% ||  5 || [  2 /   3] ||  0
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  8  
||  0 ||  0.0% ||  11 || [ 2 /  9] ||  0 ||  0
|-
|-
| 33. [[Results of CW|CW]] ||  11 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) ||  11 ||  0 || ( 0.0\%) || 11 || [  6 5] ||  0 ||  0   
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 34. [[Results of 3j,6j,9j Symbols|TJ]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 57
||  0 ||   1
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  37
||  0 ||  0.0%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  1
||  0 ||  0.0%  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" 37
||  0 || 0.0% ||   1 || [  0 1] ||  0  
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  0  
||  14 || 37.8% || 10 || [  5 /  5] ||  13 ||  0
|-
|-
| 34. [[Results of TJ|TJ]] || 37 ||   0 || ( 0.0\%) || 37 || 14 || (37.8\%) || 10 || [  5 /  5] || 13 ||   0 
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 35. [[Results of Functions of Matrix Argument|FM]]  
|style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 46
|| 0 || 0  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 0  
|| - || -
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | -
|| - || -
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | -
|| - || - || - || - || -
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" | -
|| - || - || - || - || - || -
|-
|-
| 35. [[Results of FM|FM]] ||   0 ||   - ||       - ||  - ||  - ||       - ||  - ||  [ - / - ] ||  - ||  -  
! scope="row" style="text-align: left; border-right: solid 1px #000"| 36. [[Results of Integrals with Coalescing Saddles|IC]]  
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" | 106
|| 12 || 24
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  24
||  0 ||  0.0%
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  19
||  0 || 0.0%
| style="border-right: solid 1px #000;" |  24
||  3 || 15.8% ||  12 || [ 1 / 11] ||  3
| style="border-right: solid 2px #aaa;" |  1
||  3 || 12.5% ||  13 || [  1 / 12] ||  1 ||  6
|-
|-
| 36. [[Results of IC|IC]] || 24 ||   0 || ( 0.0\%) || 24 ||   3 || (12.5\%) || 13 || [ 1 / 12] ||   1 ||   6 
! <math>\sum</math> || 6623 || 2067 || 4114 || 4713 || 1084 || 26.3% || 2618 || 1235 || 26.2% || 3474 || 698 || 26.7% || 1357 || [607 / 750] || 329 || 226 || 784 || 22.6% || 1784 || [687 / 1097] || 655 || 180
|-
|-
|}
|}
=References=

Latest revision as of 13:55, 28 November 2023

This wiki provides an overview of LaCASt, our LaTeX to Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) Translator, and its translations of the Digital Library of Mathematical Functions (DLMF). Specifically, we provide access to the translations for Maple and Mathematica. Additionally, each translation was verified with symbolic and numeric evaluation techniques. In the following, we present the results of our translations and evaluations.

For legal inquiries, use the methods described at https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/.

Bug Reports

You can find a PDF with commands that illustrate the encountered errors in Mathematica here: File:Mathematica Bugs Overview.pdf

We provide the same file in the Wolfram system notebook format (NB) here: File:Mathematica Bugs Notebook File.nb

DLMF Translations and Results

This section explains the data you can access. Below, you will find a large table that shows the overall results of translations, symbolic and numeric verifications, as well as a number of errors and aborted calculations for each DLMF chapter. Before you move on to investigating the results, please have a look at how to read the data first.

How to read the data?

The data on this website can be considered as an extension of the DLMF but not a copy. Some labeled equations in the DLMF do not appear in this data because they were skipped or caused translation errors in both systems (Maple and Mathematica). In addition, the result tables on this website do not provide context! For checking the context, every equation in our dataset is linked directly to the equation in the DLMF. You can access the original DLMF equation by clicking on the label in the most-left column in the result tables.

You can access the results by clicking on a particular chapter below. This will load a page showing links to each section. Red links indicate that this section is empty, i.e., no results are available for that section. Clicking on a blue-inked link will load the result table for that section. Below you see an example of such a table with just two equations from different chapters. As you can see, the first entry 4.12.E1 is grayed out. This happens when the entry was skipped due to missing semantic macros in the source of the test case (flagged as Skipped - no semantic math). You can see the actual semantic LaTeX source of every test case below the equation. Since most of these cases are not translated properly by LCT, we skipped them directly, i.e., they were not further processed for symbolic or numeric evaluations. In fact, those cases have not even been translated into our pipeline. However, we added the translations just for our result tables because they may provide further interesting insights into the translation process.

The most-right columns in the table show the numeric evaluation results. If an equation was not numerically verified, it shows Failed [x/y] where Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle x} is the number of failed calculations and Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle y} is the number of all test calculations for this test case. As you can see in the second entry below 11.5.E2, 15 test calculations failed out of 25, so 10 were successful. When you click on the little Expand, we show the first couple of results for the failed test cases. Since the tables are already very large, we cannot show all failed test calculations.

Clicking on expand for the second entry in our example table below, we see the test result and the test values that produced this result. As explained in the paper, the calculation was simply performed on the difference of the left- and right-hand sides of the equation LHS - RHS. Further explanations on why this test failed can be found in the paper.

Failed [15 / 25]
Result: Complex[0.9495382353861556, -0.46093572348323536]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 1.5]}
Result: Complex[0.7706973036767981, -0.20650772012904173]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 0.5]}
... skip entries to safe data


DLMF Formula Constraints Maple Mathematica Symbolic
Maple
Symbolic
Mathematica
Numeric
Maple
Numeric
Mathematica
4.12.E1 Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \phi(x+1) = e^{\phi(x)}}
\phi(x+1) = e^{\phi(x)}
Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle -1 < x, x < \infty}
phi(x + 1) = exp(phi(x))
\[Phi][x + 1] == Exp[\[Phi][x]]
Skipped - no semantic math Skipped - no semantic math - -
11.5.E2 Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \StruveK{\nu}@{z} = \frac{2(\tfrac{1}{2}z)^{\nu}}{\sqrt{\pi}\EulerGamma@{\nu+\tfrac{1}{2}}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-zt}(1+t^{2})^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}\diff{t}}
\StruveK{\nu}@{z} = \frac{2(\tfrac{1}{2}z)^{\nu}}{\sqrt{\pi}\EulerGamma@{\nu+\tfrac{1}{2}}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-zt}(1+t^{2})^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}\diff{t}
Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \realpart@@{z} > 0, \realpart@@{(\nu+\tfrac{1}{2})} > 0, \realpart@@{(\nu+k+1)} > 0, \realpart@@{((-\nu)+k+1)} > 0, \realpart@@{(n+\nu+\tfrac{3}{2})} > 0}
StruveH(nu, z) - BesselY(nu, z) = (2*((1)/(2)*z)^(nu))/(sqrt(Pi)*GAMMA(nu +(1)/(2)))*int(exp(- z*t)*(1 + (t)^(2))^(nu -(1)/(2)), t = 0..infinity)
StruveH[\[Nu], z] - BesselY[\[Nu], z] == Divide[2*(Divide[1,2]*z)^\[Nu],Sqrt[Pi]*Gamma[\[Nu]+Divide[1,2]]]*Integrate[Exp[- z*t]*(1 + (t)^(2))^(\[Nu]-Divide[1,2]), {t, 0, Infinity}, GenerateConditions->None]
Successful Successful -
Failed [15 / 25]
Result: Complex[0.9495382353861556, -0.46093572348323536]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 1.5]}

Result: Complex[0.7706973036767981, -0.20650772012904173]
Test Values: {Rule[z, Power[E, Times[Complex[0, Rational[1, 6]], Pi]]], Rule[ν, 0.5]}

... skip entries to safe data

As a summary, here is an explanation for every column of the result tables.

DLMF
Contains the equation label as a link to the actual equation in the DLMF. Click on the label if you need to check the context of a formula in the DLMF.
Formula
Contains the rendered formula and the actual semantic LaTeX source (sometimes also referred to as content-tex). More information about the semantic (or content) LaTeX can be found in [1]
Constraints
This shows the constraints that LCT has generated by analyzing the definitions of the functions that are included in the equation. This also includes the constraints that are directly attached to a test case. For example, 11.5.E2 only has the constraint Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \realpart@@{z} > 0} . LCT followed the definitions of the involved functions and identified several more constraints for this test case. A detailed explanation of this process was given in the paper. Note, however, that this list of constraints does not contain the manually defined global constraints that we applied for all test cases (as shown in Table 3 in the paper). This way, the result tables only show what LCT generated and applied for the numeric evaluations.
Maple
The translation to Maple
Mathematica
The translation to Mathematica
Symbolic (Maple / Mathematica)
The result of the symbolic evaluation. If this was skipped, no calculations have been performed on the test case.
Numeric (Maple / Mathematica)
The result of the numeric evaluation as explained above and in the paper.

Links to the data

In the following, we present an overview of the translations of the DLMF equations to the CAS Maple and Mathematica.

DLMF Formula Translations
Maple
Translations
Mathematica
Symbolic Evaluation
Maple
Symbolic Evaluation
Mathematica
Numeric Evaluation
Maple
Numeric Evaluation
Mathematica
DLMF 6,545 4,114 (62.9%) 4,713 (72.0%) 1,084 (26.3%) 1,235 (26.2%) 698 (26.7%) 784 (22.6%)

The following links provide access to all results for each DLMF chapter. This will show the sections in each chapter. Please notice that many sections in a chapter might be empty (indicated by a red link color instead of a blue link). This happens when all formulae in a section have been skipped or the case analyzer was not able to parse the expression properly. In some cases, the section simply did not contain any formula.

  1. Algebraic and Analytic Methods
  2. Asymptotic Approximations
  3. Numerical Methods
  4. Elementary Functions
  5. Gamma Function
  6. Exponential, Logarithmic, Sine, and Cosine Integrals
  7. Error Functions, Dawson’s and Fresnel Integrals
  8. Incomplete Gamma and Related Functions
  9. Airy and Related Functions
  10. Bessel Functions
  11. Struve and Related Functions
  12. Parabolic Cylinder Functions
  13. Confluent Hypergeometric Functions
  14. Legendre and Related Functions
  15. Hypergeometric Function
  16. Generalized Hypergeometric Functions and Meijer G-Function
  17. q-Hypergeometric and Related Functions
  18. Orthogonal Polynomials
  19. Elliptic Integrals
  20. Theta Functions
  21. Multidimensional Theta Functions
  22. Jacobian Elliptic Functions
  23. Weierstrass Elliptic and Modular Functions
  24. Bernoulli and Euler Polynomials
  25. Zeta and Related Functions
  26. Combinatorial Analysis
  27. Functions of Number Theory
  28. Mathieu Functions and Hill’s Equation
  29. Lamé Functions
  30. Spheroidal Wave Functions
  31. Heun Functions
  32. Painlevé Transcendents
  33. Coulomb Functions
  34. 3j,6j,9j Symbols
  35. Functions of Matrix Argument
  36. Integrals with Coalescing Saddles

Examples

To provide you a starting point to investigate the data above, we suggest Hypergeometric Function - 15.4 Special Cases. For example, 15.4.E28

Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \hyperF@{a}{b}{\tfrac{1}{2}a+\tfrac{1}{2}b+\tfrac{1}{2}}{\tfrac{1}{2}} = \sqrt{\pi}\frac{\EulerGamma@{\tfrac{1}{2}a+\tfrac{1}{2}b+\tfrac{1}{2}}}{\EulerGamma@{\tfrac{1}{2}a+\tfrac{1}{2}}\EulerGamma@{\tfrac{1}{2}b+\tfrac{1}{2}}}}

was successfully translated to Maple and Mathematica and verified symbolically and numerically in both systems despite the complexity of such a test case.

Maple Mathematica
hypergeom([a, b], [(1)/(2)*a +(1)/(2)*b +(1)/(2)], (1)/(2)) = sqrt(Pi)*(GAMMA((1)/(2)*a +(1)/(2)*b +(1)/(2)))/(GAMMA((1)/(2)*a +(1)/(2))*GAMMA((1)/(2)*b +(1)/(2)))
Hypergeometric2F1[a, b, Divide[1,2]*a +Divide[1,2]*b +Divide[1,2], Divide[1,2]] == Sqrt[Pi]*Divide[Gamma[Divide[1,2]*a +Divide[1,2]*b +Divide[1,2]],Gamma[Divide[1,2]*a +Divide[1,2]]*Gamma[Divide[1,2]*b +Divide[1,2]]]

Another interesting section might be Combinatorial Analysis - 26.3 Lattice Paths: Binomial Coefficients. All expressions are relatively straight-forward. Nonetheless, 23.3.E8

Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \binom{m}{n} = \sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{m-n-1+k}{k}}

failed numerically. This test case failed because Mathematica simplified the right-hand side directly to Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \frac{(1+n) {m \choose n+1}}{m-n}} which would result in a division by zero for Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle m = n} . Indeed, our result table show that the test evaluation failed for Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle m=n=1} and Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle m=n=2} (the last case Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle m=n=3} was omitted because we only show the first two failed calculations to reduce the size of the result tables). This simple example shows the challenge of interpreting the data and working with computer algebra systems.

Translations and Evaluations Overview Table

Meaning
2C Chapter Code
S Successful
% Percentage
F Fail
P/T Partially / Totally Failed
A Aborted
E Errors
Base The baseline performance of the translator
Maple The CAS Maple 2020
Mathematica The CAS Mathematica
Symbolic Numeric
Formulae Translations Maple Mathematica Maple Mathematica
2C Total Base Maple Math S % F S % F S % F [P/T] A E S % F [P/T] A E
1. AL 227 60 102 103 36 35.3% 60 34 33.0% 69 14 23.3% 35 [ 12 / 23] 7 4 14 20.3% 40 [ 9 / 31] 11 4
2. AS 136 33 65 65 6 9.2% 47 6 9.2% 59 7 14.9% 33 [ 5 / 28] 1 5 4 6.8% 38 [ 6 / 32] 7 9
3. NM 53 36 40 40 6 15.0% 31 5 12.5% 35 1 3.2% 27 [ 9 / 18] 0 2 0 0.0% 29 [ 8 / 21] 6 0
4. EF 569 353 494 564 270 54.7% 221 304 53.9% 260 88 39.8% 126 [ 64 / 62] 0 6 110 42.3% 146 [ 55 / 91] 2 0
5. GA 144 38 130 139 41 31.5% 76 65 46.8% 74 39 51.3% 25 [ 12 / 13] 4 8 30 40.5% 20 [ 9 / 11] 13 9
6. EX 107 21 56 77 13 23.2% 43 18 23.4% 59 10 23.2% 31 [ 13 / 18] 0 2 23 39.0% 32 [ 6 / 26] 4 0
7. ER 149 35 101 120 52 51.5% 47 45 37.5% 75 21 44.7% 23 [ 10 / 13] 2 1 21 28.0% 43 [ 13 / 30] 9 1
8. IG 204 84 160 163 51 31.9% 102 65 39.9% 98 27 26.5% 61 [ 20 / 41] 9 5 22 22.4% 44 [ 19 / 25] 16 15
9. AI 235 36 180 179 54 30.0% 124 69 38.5% 110 34 27.4% 75 [ 41 / 34] 4 8 30 27.3% 58 [ 38 / 20] 14 7
10. BS 653 143 392 486 80 20.4% 209 115 23.7% 371 86 41.1% 59 [ 41 / 18] 52 12 90 24.2% 151 [ 57 / 94] 92 18
11. ST 124 48 121 112 39 32.2% 73 36 32.1% 76 25 34.2% 40 [ 14 / 26] 3 5 21 27.6% 33 [ 8 / 25] 10 11
12. PC 106 33 79 90 25 31.6% 50 18 20.0% 72 15 30.0% 24 [ 15 / 9] 11 0 13 18.0% 43 [ 15 / 28] 12 3
13. CH 260 126 252 254 75 29.8% 143 69 27.2% 185 14 9.8% 90 [ 55 / 35] 37 2 23 12.4% 95 [ 59 / 36] 45 21
14. LE 238 166 230 229 30 13.0% 163 30 13.1% 199 40 24.5% 93 [ 57 / 36] 18 12 59 29.6% 92 [ 54 / 38] 41 5
15. HY 206 148 198 197 46 23.2% 115 53 26.9% 144 17 14.8% 52 [ 34 / 18] 23 23 23 16.0% 77 [ 52 / 25] 29 6
16. GH 53 20 23 25 3 13.0% 16 2 8.0% 23 1 6.2% 9 [ 8 / 1] 6 0 1 4.3% 10 [ 7 / 3] 9 2
17. QH 175 1 53 124 23 43.4% 24 6 4.8% 118 0 0.0% 0 [ 0 / 0] 1 23 13 11.0% 57 [ 52 / 5] 39 5
18. OP 468 132 235 288 65 27.6% 148 101 35.1% 185 67 45.3% 50 [ 32 / 18] 14 17 45 24.3% 68 [ 31 / 37] 52 12
19. EL 516 103 252 416 39 15.5% 192 51 12.2% 365 18 9.4% 123 [ 44 / 79] 34 17 18 4.9% 264 [ 49 / 215] 61 15
20. TH 128 52 98 98 10 10.2% 68 1 1.0% 97 0 0.0% 32 [ 17 / 15] 20 16 33 34.0% 40 [ 25 / 15] 24 0
21. MT 32 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22. JA 264 115 232 238 46 19.8% 176 30 12.6% 206 20 11.4% 116 [ 25 / 91] 36 4 22 10.7% 131 [ 39 / 92] 51 0
23. WE 164 7 19 34 1 5.3% 16 4 11.8% 30 0 0.0% 14 [ 2 / 12] 1 1 2 6.7% 23 [ 9 / 14] 2 3
24. BP 175 31 117 148 15 12.8% 101 23 15.5% 125 67 66.3% 32 [ 19 / 13] 1 1 78 62.4% 33 [ 22 / 11] 14 0
25. ZE 154 28 124 120 19 15.3% 90 48 40.0% 72 43 47.8% 29 [ 18 / 11] 10 8 22 30.5% 22 [ 6 / 16] 22 3
26. CM 136 31 78 87 20 25.6% 50 19 21.8% 68 30 60.0% 11 [ 8 / 3] 2 7 44 64.7% 18 [ 10 / 8] 5 1
27. NT 79 5 26 15 3 11.5% 17 6 40.0% 9 2 11.8% 6 [ 3 / 3] 0 8 3 33.3% 6 [ 3 / 3] 0 0
28. MA 267 52 97 110 7 7.2% 80 7 6.4% 103 6 7.5% 32 [ 12 / 20] 26 15 3 2.9% 48 [ 13 / 35] 33 17
29. LA 111 11 23 22 0 0.0% 21 0 0.0% 22 0 0.0% 19 [ 2 / 17] 0 2 0 0.0% 21 [ 1 / 20] 0 1
30. SW 71 14 19 26 0 0.0% 18 0 0.0% 26 0 0.0% 18 [ 5 / 13] 0 0 0 0.0% 19 [ 2 / 17] 5 1
31. HE 35 29 22 15 5 22.7% 13 2 13.3% 13 2 15.4% 10 [ 0 / 10] 0 1 0 0.0% 8 [ 0 / 8] 5 0
32. PT 67 43 57 57 3 5.3% 51 3 5.3% 54 1 2.0% 44 [ 7 / 37] 4 2 0 0.0% 41 [ 2 / 39] 8 5
33. CW 108 21 14 11 1 7.1% 13 0 0.0% 11 0 0.0% 5 [ 2 / 3] 0 8 0 0.0% 11 [ 2 / 9] 0 0
34. TJ 57 0 1 37 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 37 0 0.0% 1 [ 0 / 1] 0 0 14 37.8% 10 [ 5 / 5] 13 0
35. FM 46 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
36. IC 106 12 24 24 0 0.0% 19 0 0.0% 24 3 15.8% 12 [ 1 / 11] 3 1 3 12.5% 13 [ 1 / 12] 1 6
Failed to parse (LaTeXML (experimental; uses MathML): Invalid response ("") from server "http://latexml:8080/convert/":): {\displaystyle \sum} 6623 2067 4114 4713 1084 26.3% 2618 1235 26.2% 3474 698 26.7% 1357 [607 / 750] 329 226 784 22.6% 1784 [687 / 1097] 655 180

References

  1. Abdou Youssef and Bruce R. Miller, "A Contextual and Labeled Math-Dataset Derived from NIST's DLMF." In: Intelligent Computer Mathematics (CICM) 2020: 324-330. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-53518-6_25