PreprintCited by 658Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing

Solving General Arithmetic Word Problems

Open access
Roy, Subhro, Roth, Dan·2016·arXiv

Abstract

This paper presents a novel approach to automatically solving arithmetic word problems. This is the first algorithmic approach that can handle arithmetic problems with multiple steps and operations, without depending on additional annotations or predefined templates. We develop a theory for expression trees that can be used to represent and evaluate the target arithmetic expressions; we use it to uniquely decompose the target arithmetic problem to multiple classification problems; we then compose an expression tree, combining these with world knowledge through a constrained inference framework. Our classifiers gain from the use of {\em quantity schemas} that supports better extraction of features. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing systems, achieving state of the art performance on benchmark datasets of arithmetic word problems.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1608.01413

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • Optimized prompts found for GSM8K also outperform baseline prompts with different scorer LLMs on Multi-Arith and AQuA.

    “Table 6 shows that our optimized prompts also outperform baseline prompts with different scorer LLMs on these two benchmarks.”

    From Large Language Models as Optimizers (2023) · cites this paper as Roy & Roth, 2016

    Section 5 (Experimental Results) evaluates arithmetic-word-problem classifiers and a full system on AI2, IL, and CC; its tables do not report prompt optimization. Searches for GSM8K, Multi-Arith, AQuA, scorer LLMs, and Table 6 found no passage addressing the claimed comparison. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

6 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Y. Goldberg and M. Elhadad. 2010. An efficient algo- rithm for easy-first non-directional dependency pars- ing. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 742-750, Los Angeles, California, June.
  2. V. Punyakanok, D. Roth, and W. Yih. 2005. The ne- cessity of syntactic parsing for semantic role label- ing. In Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 1117-1123.
  3. D. Roth and W. Yih. 2004. A linear programming formulation for global inference in natural language tasks. In Hwee Tou Ng and Ellen Riloff, editors, Proc. of the Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 1-8. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roy, S., & Roth, D.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Roth, Dan
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
Pages
1743-1752
OpenAlex
W2251935656
Cited by
275
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 2
FWCI
9.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-13-2-0008, FA8750)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Keywords
arithmetic word problems, automated problem solving, expression trees, constrained inference, world knowledge, feature extraction

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