Cited by 31Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Games

“A theme-rewriting approach for generating algebra word problems,”

Open access
Koncel-Kedziorski, Rik, Konstas, Ioannis, Zettlemoyer, Luke, Hajishirzi, Hannaneh·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Texts present coherent stories that have a particular theme or overall setting, for example science fiction or western.In this paper, we present a text generation method called rewriting that edits existing human-authored narratives to change their theme without changing the underlying story.We apply the approach to math word problems, where it might help students stay more engaged by quickly transforming all of their homework assignments to the theme of their favorite movie without changing the math concepts that are being taught.Our rewriting method uses a twostage decoding process, which proposes new words from the target theme and scores the resulting stories according to a number of factors defining aspects of syntactic, semantic, and thematic coherence.Experiments demonstrate that the final stories typically represent the new theme well while still testing the original math concepts, outperforming a number of baselines.We also release a new dataset of human-authored rewrites of math word problems in several themes.

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/d16-1168

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Preliminary work in automatic MWP generation take a template-based approach, where an existing problem is generalized into a template, and a solution space fitting this template is explored to generate new problems.

    “Preliminary work in automatic MWP generation take a template-based approach, where an existing problem is generalized into a template, and a solution space fitting this template is explored to generate new problems (Deane and Sheehan, 2003; Polozov et al., 2015; Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016).”

    From Proactive and reactive engagement of artificial intelligence methods for education: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016

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. Nathanael Chambers and Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Unsuper- vised Learning of Narrative Schemas and Their Par- ticipants. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th Inter- national Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing of the AFNLP: Volume 2-Volume 2, pages 602- 610. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Janis M Hart. 1996. The Effect of Personalized Word Problems. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(8):504- 505.
  3. Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ashish Sabharwal, Oren Etzioni, and Siena Ang. 2015b. Parsing algebraic word problems into equations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:585-597.
  4. Michael Lebowitz. 1987. Planning Stories. In Proceed- ings of the cognitive science society, Hillsdale, pages 234-242.
  5. Sarah Petersen and Mari Ostendorf. 2007. Text simpli- fication for langauge learners: A corpus analysis. In Proceedings of the Speech and Language Technology in Education Workshop (SLaTE).
  6. Karl Pichotta and Raymond J. Mooney. 2016. Learn- ing statistical scripts with LSTM recurrent neural net- works. In Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-16), Phoenix, Arizona.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koncel-Kedziorski, R., Konstas, I., Zettlemoyer, L., & Hajishirzi, H.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2016
Pages
1617-1628
OpenAlex
W2532931541
Cited by
30
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.98
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1616112)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-13-2-0008, FA8750)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
algebra word problems, text rewriting, narrative coherence, two-stage decoding, thematic coherence, student engagement

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