Collaborative problem solving: a study of MathOverflow
Abstract
The Internet has the potential to accelerate scientific problem solving by engaging a global pool of contributors. Existing approaches focus on broadcasting problems to many independent solvers. We investigate other approaches that may be advantageous by examining a community for mathematical problem solving -- MathOverflow -- in which contributors communicate and collaborate to solve new mathematical 'micro-problems' online. We contribute a simple taxonomy of collaborative acts derived from a process-level examination of collaborations and a quantitative analysis relating collaborative acts to solution quality. Our results indicate a diversity of ways in which mathematicians are reaching a solution, including by iteratively advancing a solution. A better understanding of such collaborative strategies can inform the design of tools to support distributed collaboration on complex problems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This type of qualitative design probe study is common in formative research on human-AI interaction, as our goal is not to settle on specific design elements, but rather to explore what is possible in the design space of introducing user communities to AI code generation tools.
“Not measured by quantitative metrics, this type of qualitative design probe study is common in formative research on human-AI interaction (e.g., [ 13 , 57 ]), as our goal is not to settle on specific design elements, but rather to explore what is possible in the design space of introducing user communities to AI code generation tools.”
From "It would work for me too": How Online Communities Shape Software Developers' Trust in AI-Powered Code Generation Tools (2024) · cites this paper as [57]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 78
- Authors
- Tausczik, Y. R., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-02-15
- Pages
- 355-367
- OpenAlex
- W1982759407
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 9.10
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Keywords
- collaborative problem solving, solution quality, distributed collaboration, online communities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
