According to Phys.org, Penn State mathematicians Leonid Berlyand and Oleksii Krupchytskyi are tackling deep learning’s notorious “black box” problem using mathematical principles. Deep learning, which powers ChatGPT’s 700 million weekly users and Nobel Prize-winning protein structure research, uses artificial neural networks with hundreds of layers and trillions of parameters. These systems learn patterns automatically without explicit programming, but this very strength makes them opaque and difficult to validate. The researchers are applying mathematical tools to understand what’s actually happening inside these complex networks to improve their reliability and performance.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The black box blues
Here’s the thing about deep learning: it’s incredibly powerful but fundamentally mysterious. These neural networks can have hundreds of layers where each layer identifies increasingly complex features, yet we often can’t explain exactly how they arrive at their conclusions. That’s fine when you’re classifying handwritten digits, but what about when AI is making medical diagnoses or driving cars? The lack of transparency becomes a real problem. We’re essentially trusting systems we don’t fully understand, and that should make anyone nervous.
Mathematics to the rescue
What’s fascinating about this approach is that they’re bringing centuries of mathematical theory to a field that’s largely been driven by computer science and engineering. Berlyand makes a great analogy: you can be a race car driver without knowing how the engine works, but you can’t improve the design. That’s where mathematics comes in. By applying rigorous mathematical frameworks, they’re trying to answer fundamental questions about when algorithms are actually “trained,” how stable they are, and why they sometimes fail spectacularly.
Why this matters now
Look, we’re at a point where AI is being integrated into everything from healthcare to scientific research. ChatGPT has become a household name practically overnight. But the rapid adoption has outpaced our understanding of how these systems actually work. Krupchytskyi points out that while computer scientists have empirical tools to improve performance, mathematics provides the theoretical foundation needed for true reliability. Basically, we’re building skyscrapers without fully understanding the physics of the materials we’re using. That seems… risky.
The human factor
And here’s what really gets me: we’re creating systems that can outperform humans in specific tasks, yet we can’t always explain their reasoning. That creates a weird dependency where we have to trust outcomes we can’t verify. The Penn State team’s work on making these systems more interpretable isn’t just academic—it’s crucial for building AI that we can actually rely on in high-stakes situations. After all, do we really want to deploy technology in critical applications when we’re not entirely sure how it works? I don’t think so.
