Mathematical Notation Rendering Comparison: Visual Quality Assessment
Purpose: Compare four methods for displaying mathematical notation in CORSIPP and POLICE documentation. This page demonstrates the visual differences to help you choose the best standard for both projects.
Current State:
- CORSIPP: Uses MathJax 2.7 (DokuWiki plugin)
- POLICE: Uses Unicode/HTML subscripts
- Decision needed: Choose ONE method for both projects
Full-Text Comparison: Same Content, Four Different Rendering Methods
Polarimetric radars provide variables like the specific differential phase ($K_{DP}$) to detect fingerprints of dendritic growth in the dendritic growth layer (DGL) and secondary ice production, both critical for precipitation formation. A key challenge in interpreting radar observations is the lack of in situ validation of particle properties within the radar measurement volume. While high $K_{DP}$ in snow is usually associated with high particle number concentrations, only few studies attributed $K_{DP}$ to certain hydrometeor types and sizes. We found that at W-band, $K_{DP} > 2\,^\circ\,\mathrm{km}^{-1}$ can result from a broad range of particle number concentrations, between $1$ and $100\,\mathrm{L}^{-1}$. Blowing snow and increased ice collisional fragmentation in a turbulent layer enhanced observed $K_{DP}$ values. T-matrix simulations indicated that high $K_{DP}$ values were primarily produced by particles smaller than $0.8\,\mathrm{mm}$ in the DGL and $1.5\,\mathrm{mm}$ near the surface.
The distinction between aggregation and riming below the DGL is important, because the latter signals the presence of super-cooled liquid water (SLW). Riming favors secondary ice production through the Hallet-Mossop process (rime splintering), which is active between $-3\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ and $-8\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$. POLICE exploited quasi-vertical profile (QVP) data of reflectivity ($Z_H$), differential reflectivity ($Z_{DR}$), and depolarization ratio ($DR$). Similar to $Z_{DR}$, the variable $DR$ tends to decrease in rimed snow relative to aggregated snow, but the corresponding difference in $DR$ is $2$–$4\,\mathrm{dB}$ larger (e.g., Ryzhkov et al., 2017). Naturally, $DR$ combines the information content of $Z_{DR}$ and cross-correlation coefficient ($\rho_{hv}$) in a single quantity. The MISPs of mean Doppler velocity ($MDV$) are used to identify regions with particles falling faster than $1.5\,\mathrm{m}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and accordingly associated with riming.
Polarimetric radars provide variables like the specific differential phase (KDP) to detect fingerprints of dendritic growth in the dendritic growth layer (DGL) and secondary ice production, both critical for precipitation formation. A key challenge in interpreting radar observations is the lack of in situ validation of particle properties within the radar measurement volume. While high KDP in snow is usually associated with high particle number concentrations, only few studies attributed KDP to certain hydrometeor types and sizes. We found that at W-band, KDP > 2 °km⁻¹ can result from a broad range of particle number concentrations, between 1 and 100 L⁻¹. Blowing snow and increased ice collisional fragmentation in a turbulent layer enhanced observed KDP values. T-matrix simulations indicated that high KDP values were primarily produced by particles smaller than 0.8 mm in the DGL and 1.5 mm near the surface.
The distinction between aggregation and riming below the DGL is important, because the latter signals the presence of super-cooled liquid water (SLW). Riming favors secondary ice production through the Hallet-Mossop process (rime splintering), which is active between -3°C and -8°C. POLICE exploited quasi-vertical profile (QVP) data of reflectivity (ZH), differential reflectivity (ZDR), and depolarization ratio (DR). Similar to ZDR, the variable DR tends to decrease in rimed snow relative to aggregated snow, but the corresponding difference in DR is 2-4 dB larger (e.g., Ryzhkov et al., 2017). Naturally, DR combines the information content of ZDR and cross-correlation coefficient (ρhv) in a single quantity. The MISPs of mean Doppler velocity (MDV) are used to identify regions with particles falling faster than 1.5 m/s and accordingly associated with riming.
Close-Up Visual Comparison: Critical Notation Patterns
Example 1: Most Common Variable (KDP)
MathJax 2.7
$K_{DP}$
MathJax 4
$K_{DP}$
KaTeX
$K_{DP}$
Unicode/HTML
KDP
Example 2: Inequality with Complex Units
MathJax 2.7
$K_{DP} > 2\,^\circ\,\mathrm{km}^{-1}$
MathJax 4
$K_{DP} > 2\,^\circ\,\mathrm{km}^{-1}$
KaTeX
$K_{DP} > 2\,^\circ\,\mathrm{km}^{-1}$
Unicode/HTML
KDP > 2 °km⁻¹
Example 3: Temperature Range
MathJax 2.7
$-3\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ to $-8\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$
MathJax 4
$-3\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ to $-8\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$
KaTeX
$-3\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ to $-8\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$
Unicode/HTML
-3°C to -8°C
Example 4: Greek Letter with Subscript
MathJax 2.7
$\rho_{hv}$
MathJax 4
$\rho_{hv}$
KaTeX
$\rho_{hv}$
Unicode/HTML
ρhv
Example 5: Velocity with Compound Units
MathJax 2.7
$1.5\,\mathrm{m}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$
MathJax 4
$1.5\,\mathrm{m}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$
KaTeX
$1.5\,\mathrm{m}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$
Unicode/HTML
1.5 m/s
Example 6: Multiple Variables in Sequence
MathJax 2.7
$Z_H$, $Z_{DR}$, $K_{DP}$
MathJax 4
$Z_H$, $Z_{DR}$, $K_{DP}$
KaTeX
$Z_H$, $Z_{DR}$, $K_{DP}$
Unicode/HTML
ZH, ZDR, KDP
Example 7: Concentration Range
MathJax 2.7
$1$ to $100\,\mathrm{L}^{-1}$
MathJax 4
$1$ to $100\,\mathrm{L}^{-1}$
KaTeX
$1$ to $100\,\mathrm{L}^{-1}$
Unicode/HTML
1 to 100 L⁻¹
Example 8: Decibel Range
MathJax 2.7
$2$–$4\,\mathrm{dB}$
MathJax 4
$2$–$4\,\mathrm{dB}$
KaTeX
$2$–$4\,\mathrm{dB}$
Unicode/HTML
2-4 dB
Technical Comparison Summary
Criterion | MathJax 2.7 (Plugin) | MathJax 4 (Manual) | KaTeX (Manual) | Unicode/HTML |
---|---|---|---|---|
Visual Quality | ★★★★★ Excellent | ★★★★★ Excellent | ★★★★★ Excellent | ★★☆☆☆ Poor |
Rendering Speed | ★★★☆☆ (100-200ms) | ★★★★☆ (50-100ms) | ★★★★★ (<5ms) | ★★★★★ Instant |
File Size | ★★☆☆☆ (~500KB) | ★★★☆☆ (~350KB) | ★★★★☆ (~150KB) | ★★★★★ None |
Font Used | Computer Modern (LaTeX standard) | Computer Modern (LaTeX standard) | Cambria Math (modern) | Browser default (inconsistent) |
DokuWiki Integration | ★★★★★ Native plugin | ★★☆☆☆ Manual HTML blocks | ★★☆☆☆ Manual HTML blocks | ★★★★★ Native HTML |
Maintenance | ★★★★★ Auto-updates | ★★☆☆☆ Manual CDN updates | ★★☆☆☆ Manual CDN updates | ★★★★★ No dependencies |
LaTeX Support | ★★★★★ Full (includes old packages) | ★★★★★ Full (modern syntax) | ★★★★☆ ~90% (no obscure commands) | ★☆☆☆☆ Not LaTeX |
Cross-Project Consistency | ★★★★★ Same plugin everywhere | ★★★☆☆ Copy/paste config | ★★★☆☆ Copy/paste config | ★★★☆☆ Manual conversion |
Scientific Standard | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ✗ No |
Publication Quality | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ✗ No |
Visual Quality Breakdown
Visual Aspect | MathJax 2.7 | MathJax 4 | KaTeX | Unicode/HTML |
---|---|---|---|---|
Subscript positioning | ✓ Perfect height, aligned with baseline | ✓ Perfect height, aligned with baseline | ✓ Perfect height, aligned with baseline | ✗ Too low, disrupts line spacing |
Superscript positioning | ✓ Proper height, readable size | ✓ Proper height, readable size | ✓ Proper height, readable size | ✗ Often cramped, too small |
Greek letters (ρ, θ, φ) | ✓ Proper italic mathematics font | ✓ Proper italic mathematics font | ✓ Proper italic mathematics font | ✗ Upright, wrong font, inconsistent |
Mathematical spacing | ✓ Professional thin spaces (\,) | ✓ Professional thin spaces (\,) | ✓ Professional thin spaces (\,) | ✗ No thin space control |
Units formatting | ✓ Upright (\mathrm), correct spacing | ✓ Upright (\mathrm), correct spacing | ✓ Upright (\mathrm), correct spacing | ✗ Inconsistent, often wrong |
Operator spacing | ✓ Proper space around >, <, = | ✓ Proper space around >, <, = | ✓ Proper space around >, <, = | ✗ No mathematical spacing rules |
Font consistency | ✓ Uniform Computer Modern | ✓ Uniform Computer Modern | ✓ Uniform Cambria Math | ✗ Mixed browser defaults |
Overall professionalism | ✓ Publication-grade | ✓ Publication-grade | ✓ Publication-grade | ✗ Amateur appearance |
Key Visual Facts
✓ LaTeX Methods (Options 1-3)
- Subscripts perfectly sized and positioned
- Greek letters use proper italic mathematics font
- Professional spacing around operators and units
- Meets scientific journal standards
- Content can be copied to publications
- Consistent across all documents
✗ Unicode/HTML (Option 4)
- Subscripts drop too far below baseline
- Greek letters in wrong font (upright instead of italic)
- No control over mathematical spacing
- Does not meet scientific standards
- Cannot be used in publications
- Looks unprofessional compared to published work
Differences Between LaTeX Options
All three LaTeX options (MathJax 2.7, MathJax 4, KaTeX) produce visually identical or nearly identical output. The differences are technical, not visual:
MathJax 2.7 (Current CORSIPP Plugin)
- Pro: Already installed and working on CORSIPP
- Pro: Native DokuWiki plugin (no manual configuration)
- Pro: Auto-updates via plugin system
- Pro: Most comprehensive LaTeX support (includes legacy commands)
- Con: Older version (maintenance mode, no new features)
- Con: Slower rendering (100-200ms per page)
- Con: Larger file size (~500KB)
MathJax 4 (Manual Implementation)
- Pro: Modern, actively developed version
- Pro: Faster than v2.7 (50-100ms per page)
- Pro: Smaller file size (~350KB)
- Pro: Better rendering on high-DPI screens (SVG output)
- Pro: Full LaTeX support with modern syntax
- Con: Requires manual HTML blocks on each page
- Con: Need to manually update CDN links for new versions
- Con: Different implementation from CORSIPP's plugin
KaTeX (Manual Implementation)
- Pro: Extremely fast (renders instantly, <5ms)
- Pro: Smallest file size (~150KB)
- Pro: No perceptible rendering delay
- Pro: Modern Cambria Math font (clean on all screens)
- Pro: Actively developed by Khan Academy
- Con: Requires manual HTML blocks on each page
- Con: Need to manually update CDN links for new versions
- Con: ~90% LaTeX coverage (missing some obscure commands)
- Con: Different implementation from CORSIPP's plugin
Recommendation Summary
Visual Verdict
All three LaTeX options (MathJax 2.7, MathJax 4, KaTeX) produce publication-quality output that meets scientific standards. Unicode/HTML produces visibly inferior output that does not meet professional standards for scientific documentation.
Choosing Between LaTeX Options:
Option A: If you can install MathJax plugin on POLICE
→ Use MathJax 2.7 plugin on both projects. Identical implementation, zero manual work, auto-updates.
Option B: If MathJax plugin cannot be installed
→ Use KaTeX manual implementation for speed. Requires HTML blocks but renders instantly. Best performance.
Option C: Alternative if plugin unavailable
→ Use MathJax 4 manual implementation. Modern version with full LaTeX support. Slightly slower than KaTeX but more feature-complete.
Reject: Unicode/HTML
→ Does not meet visual quality standards for professional scientific documentation.
Bottom Line: Any LaTeX option produces acceptable quality. Unicode/HTML does not. The choice between LaTeX options is a technical decision about implementation convenience, not visual quality.