Cited by 39Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing

“Math word problem generation with mathematical consistency and problem context constraints,”

Open access
Wang, Zichao, Lan, Andrew, Baraniuk, Richard·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

We study the problem of generating arithmetic math word problems (MWPs) given a math equation that specifies the mathematical computation and a context that specifies the problem scenario.Existing approaches are prone to generating MWPs that are either mathematically invalid or have unsatisfactory language quality.They also either ignore the context or require manual specification of a problem template, which compromises the diversity of the generated MWPs.In this paper, we develop a novel MWP generation approach that leverages i) pre-trained language models and a context keyword selection model to improve the language quality of the generated MWPs and ii) an equation consistency constraint for math equations to improve the mathematical validity of the generated MWPs.Extensive quantitative and qualitative experiments on three realworld MWP datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our approach compared to various baselines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.484

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • More advanced techniques aim at watermarking the content generated by language models.

    “More advanced techniques aim at watermarking the content generated by language models [64, 65], e.g., by biasing the content generation towards terms, which are rather unlikely to be jointly used by humans in a text passage.”

    From ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education (2023) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Methodology and Conclusions sections describe generating math word problems with equation and context constraints, not watermarking language-model output. Searches for watermarking and for biasing generation toward unusual combinations of terms found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Subsequent research on automatic MWP generation has focused on improving topic relevance, expression relevance, language coherence, as well as completeness and validity of the generated problems.

    “Subsequent research along this direction has focused on improving topic relevance, expression relevance, language coherence, as well as completeness and validity of the generated problems using a spectrum of approaches (Liu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Kenny Davila and Richard Zanibbi. 2017. Lay- out and semantics: Combining representations for mathematical formula search. In Prof. Intl. ACM SIGIR Conf. Res. Develop. Info. Retrieval, page 1165-1168.
  2. Shucheng Li, Lingfei Wu, Shiwei Feng, Fangli Xu, Fengyuan Xu, and Sheng Zhong. 2020. Graph-to- tree neural networks for learning structured input- output translation with applications to semantic pars- ing and math word problem. In Proc. EMNLP, pages 2841-2852.
  3. Behrooz Mansouri, Shaurya Rohatgi, Douglas W. Oard, Jian Wu, C. Lee Giles, and Richard Zanibbi. 2019. Tangent-cft: An embedding model for mathematical formulas. In Proc. Intl. ACM SIGIR Conf. Res. De- velop. Info. Retrieval, page 11-18.
  4. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  5. Qingyu Zhou and Danqing Huang. 2019. Towards gen- erating math word problems from equations and top- ics. In Proc. Int. Conf. Natural Lang. Gener., pages 494-503.
  6. Yanyan Zou and Wei Lu. 2019. Text2Math: End-to- end parsing text into math expressions. In Proc. EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 5327-5337.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, Z., Lan, A., & Baraniuk, R.
Affiliations
  • Rice University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
Lan, Andrew
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2021
Pages
5986-5999
OpenAlex
W3198965934
Cited by
39
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.11
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1917713, 1842378, 1937134)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-18, FA9550, N00014-18-1-2047, N00014)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-18-1-0478, FA9550-)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Keywords
arithmetic word problems, mathematical consistency, pre-trained language models, problem context, language quality

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