Expression Edit Distance

• Expression Edit Distance is a metric that measures dissimilarities between symbolic expressions by computing the minimal cost of tree edit operations such as insertions, deletions, and substitutions.
• It employs a workflow of parsing, canonicalization, and tree construction, followed by an extended tree edit distance algorithm (e.g., Zhang-Shasha) to provide normalized, continuous scores.
• EED enhances evaluations in automated grading and symbolic AI by granting partial credit and offering robust structural sensitivity beyond simple binary or string-based methods.

Expression Edit Distance (EED) is a family of symbolic similarity measures designed to quantify the discrepancy between structured expressions, most notably mathematical or algebraic formulas, by accounting for the minimal sequence or cost of allowed edit operations required to transform one expression into another. Unlike traditional edit distance, which operates over linear character sequences, EED extends these concepts to tree-structured data reflecting the syntactic and semantic structure of mathematical expressions. This measure is foundational in evaluating reasoning tasks involving structured outputs, parsing, symbolic computation, and automated grading for mathematical assessments.

1. Formal Definition and Motivation

The primary goal of Expression Edit Distance is to quantify the dissimilarity between two symbolic expressions (for example, the ground truth and a candidate answer from a model) by computing a cost-minimizing sequence of atomic operations—typically insertions, deletions, and substitutions—over their corresponding expression trees. EED is motivated by the need for fine-grained, structure-aware assessment of outputs in domains where symbolic correctness is more nuanced than simple string identity. Applications include mathematical expression evaluation in benchmarks such as PHYBench (Qiu et al., 22 Apr 2025), scoring models in mathematics and engineering, and providing partial credit in educational systems.

A core innovation is the adaptation of tree edit distance algorithms, such as the Zhang-Shasha algorithm, over algebraic expressions represented as trees. Given two expression trees $T_1$ and $T_2$, the EED is the cost of the minimal sequence of node insertions, deletions, or substitutions required to transform $T_1$ into $T_2$. Let $D(T_1, T_2)$ denote this cost. EED is typically normalized, for example, by the size of the ground truth tree, to yield a relative error:

$r = \frac{D(T_{gt}, T_{gen})}{|T_{gt}|}$

where $|T_{gt}|$ is the number of nodes in the ground truth tree.

2. Mathematical Formulation and Algorithmic Approach

At the core of EED is the computation of the edit distance between the trees corresponding to the two input expressions. The key similarities and differences to classic tree edit distance include:

• Node-level edits: Standard EED considers three operations: node insertion, node deletion, and node update (substitution), each typically assigned unit cost.
• Subtree operations: Extensions may discount the cost of editing large subtrees (cluster edits) to more accurately reflect domain semantics—e.g., a subtree covering an entire physical component in a physics formula may be discounted by a factor (about 60%) (Qiu et al., 22 Apr 2025).
• Normalization: Post-processing rescales the raw tree edit distance to account for granularity and yields a score reflecting partial correctness.

PHYBench applies this as follows: expressions are first parsed (via SymPy or similar CAS) and simplified to canonical forms. The simplified expressions are transformed into trees, and an extended Zhang-Shasha algorithm computes the minimal number of node-level edits needed. The final score is determined by a piecewise linear mapping:

$$\text{Score} = \begin{cases} 100 & r = 0 \ 60 - 100r & 0 < r < 0.6 \ 0 & r > 0.6 \end{cases}$$

This scoring function penalizes large discrepancies sharply, while providing meaningful partial credit for near-matches.

3. Implementation Workflow

The practical EED implementation for symbolic expressions consists of these canonical steps:

1. Expression Parsing: Input expressions (often in LaTeX) are parsed to SymPy-compatible symbolic trees.
2. Canonicalization: Both ground truth and candidate answers undergo algebraic simplification for structural normalization (eliminating differences due to, e.g., distributivity or commutativity).
3. Tree Construction: The simplified normalized expressions are serialized to tree form, where nodes represent operations or operands, and edges encode syntactic composition.
4. Edit Distance Computation: An extended tree edit distance algorithm, which may include discounted costs for large subtrees, computes $D(T_{gt}, T_{gen})$.
5. Normalization & Scoring: The edit distance is normalized and mapped to a continuous score using the piecewise function defined above.

For example, a minor discrepancy such as a coefficient mismatch would result in a single substitution node counted as a small fraction of the total; omitting an entire term would often involve a discounted subtree deletion.

4. Impact on Benchmarking and Evaluation

The introduction of EED as an evaluation metric produces several concrete improvements over binary (exact match) scoring systems:

• Partial Credit: EED grants proportional credit for answers that are structurally or numerically close to the correct solution, which is crucial in tasks where intermediate steps may be correct though the final answer deviates slightly.
• Discriminative Power: The continuous domain of EED scores increases the metric’s information content, reducing statistical variance and boosting sample efficiency by over 200% compared to binary scores in PHYBench (Qiu et al., 22 Apr 2025).
• Structural Sensitivity: By operating on expression trees, EED is more robust to variation in equivalent forms and directly sensitive to errors in the composition and manipulation of sub-expressions.

This enables quantification of both “physical perception” (problem setup) and “robust reasoning” (multi-step symbolic derivation) in physics and mathematics assessments, and allows benchmark designers to differentiate subtle model capabilities.

5. Comparison with Related Methods

EED is closely related to, but distinct from, other edit-based, alignment-based, and similarity-based evaluation metrics:

Metric	Structure Sensitivity	Granularity	Score Type
String Edit Distance	No	Character	Integer
Tree Edit Distance (TED)	Yes	Node/Subtree	Integer
Expression Edit Distance	Yes	Node/Subtree	Continuous
Binary Match	No	Whole Output	Binary (0/1)

Compared to binary or string-level scoring, EED offers both greater granularity and domain alignment. In contrast to unnormalized TED, EED normalization and tailored edit costs (including subtree discounts) provide application-specific interpretability, especially for complex symbolic expressions.

6. Applications, Advantages, and Limitations

EED has demonstrated utility in several areas:

• Mathematical expression grading: Automated systems that must provide fair partial credit and insight into model errors.
• Physics and engineering benchmarks: Tasks where derivations may follow different (but equally correct) forms, and stepwise errors must be differentiated.
• Model assessment in symbolic AI: Identifying strengths and failure modes in symbolic reasoners or hybrid neural-symbolic systems.
• Education technology: Automated grading where students’ answers may use mathematically equivalent but structurally distinct forms.

However, EED faces certain challenges:

• Dependence on accurate parsing and normalization: Semantic equivalence that is not reflected by canonical simplification may not be credited.
• Potential over-penalization of alternate but correct structural forms: If two expressions are mathematically equivalent but syntactically distant, EED may assign a low score unless the normalization stage handles such equivalences.
• Complexity in multi-step reasoning or multi-line outputs: EED as currently implemented is best suited to single boxed answers but could require extensions for richer outputs.

7. Future Directions and Open Problems

The Expression Edit Distance framework continues to evolve:

• Enhanced normalization: Integrating CAS capabilities to recognize deeper forms of mathematical equivalence.
• Context-sensitive edit operations: Weighting or parameterizing certain edits (e.g., omitting a physical constraint) based on domain knowledge.
• Extending beyond algebraic forms: Applying EED or similar structure-aware edit metrics to logical formulas, code ASTs, or general DAG-structured outputs.
• Statistical robustness analysis: Further studies on sample efficiency and score variance under EED can guide benchmark design.
• Multi-output and multi-step expansion: Developing EED-based evaluation schemes that cover not just single expressions but chains of reasoning or full derivations.

---

In summary, Expression Edit Distance provides a principled, structure-sensitive metric for quantifying symbolic similarity. By combining parsing, normalization, tree structural comparison, and continuous scoring, EED refines the evaluation landscape for complex reasoning tasks—enabling partial credit, higher sample efficiency, and fine-grained insight into model or system performance (Qiu et al., 22 Apr 2025).