REVIEW 1 cited by
GAPS: Geometry-Aware Problem Solver
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Geometry problem solving presents a formidable challenge within the NLP community. Existing approaches often rely on models designed for solving math word problems, neglecting the unique characteristics of geometry math problems. Additionally, the current research predominantly focuses on geometry calculation problems, while overlooking other essential aspects like proving. In this study, we address these limitations by proposing the Geometry-Aware Problem Solver (GAPS) model. GAPS is specifically designed to generate solution programs for geometry math problems of various types with the help of its unique problem-type classifier. To achieve this, GAPS treats the solution program as a composition of operators and operands, segregating their generation processes. Furthermore, we introduce the geometry elements enhancement method, which enhances the ability of GAPS to recognize geometry elements accurately. By leveraging these improvements, GAPS showcases remarkable performance in resolving geometry math problems. Our experiments conducted on the UniGeo dataset demonstrate the superiority of GAPS over the state-of-the-art model, Geoformer. Specifically, GAPS achieves an accuracy improvement of more than 5.3% for calculation tasks and an impressive 41.1% for proving tasks. Notably, GAPS achieves an impressive accuracy of 97.5% on proving problems, representing a significant advancement in solving geometry proving tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Survey of Deep Learning for Geometry Problem Solving
This survey organizes deep learning work on geometry problem solving into task, method, benchmark, and evaluation categories, and highlights open challenges.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.