Cited by 353Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing

Program Induction by Rationale Generation: Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems

Open access
Ling, Wang, Yogatama, Dani, Dyer, Chris, Blunsom, Phil·2017·Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Solving algebraic word problems requires executing a series of arithmetic operations-a program-to obtain a final answer.However, since programs can be arbitrarily complicated, inducing them directly from question-answer pairs is a formidable challenge.To make this task more feasible, we solve these problems by generating answer rationales, sequences of natural language and human-readable mathematical expressions that derive the final answer through a series of small steps.Although rationales do not explicitly specify programs, they provide a scaffolding for their structure via intermediate milestones.To evaluate our approach, we have created a new 100,000-sample dataset of questions, answers and rationales.Experimental results show that indirect supervision of program learning via answer rationales is a promising strategy for inducing arithmetic programs.

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/p17-1015

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • On GSM8k, SVAMP, and AQuA, LLMs have competitive performance with most task-specific methods.

    “On GSM8k [29], SVAMP [92], and AQuA [71], LLMs, as generalists, have competitive performance with most methods that have task-specific designs.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ling, W., Yogatama, D., Dyer, C., & Blunsom, P.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2017
Pages
158-167
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2962800603
Cited by
325
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 4
FWCI
9.85
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
program induction, algebra word problems, indirect supervision, mathematical reasoning, natural language explanations

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