Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Why are NLP Models Fumbling at Elementary Math? A Survey of Deep Learning based Word Problem Solvers

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

arxiv 2205.15683 v1 pith:KZYF6UUH submitted 2022-05-31 cs.CL cs.AI

Why are NLP Models Fumbling at Elementary Math? A Survey of Deep Learning based Word Problem Solvers

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords wordmathmodelsproblemsbeendeepelementaryinterest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

From the latter half of the last decade, there has been a growing interest in developing algorithms for automatically solving mathematical word problems (MWP). It is a challenging and unique task that demands blending surface level text pattern recognition with mathematical reasoning. In spite of extensive research, we are still miles away from building robust representations of elementary math word problems and effective solutions for the general task. In this paper, we critically examine the various models that have been developed for solving word problems, their pros and cons and the challenges ahead. In the last two years, a lot of deep learning models have recorded competing results on benchmark datasets, making a critical and conceptual analysis of literature highly useful at this juncture. We take a step back and analyse why, in spite of this abundance in scholarly interest, the predominantly used experiment and dataset designs continue to be a stumbling block. From the vantage point of having analyzed the literature closely, we also endeavour to provide a road-map for future math word problem research.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Artificial Intelligence for Mathematical Reasoning: An Integrated Survey of Language Models, Neuro-symbolic Systems, and Verified Discovery

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A four-axis survey unifies informal, formal, discovery-oriented, and training/inference techniques for AI mathematical reasoning, with benchmark and failure-mode critique.

  2. Artificial Intelligence for Mathematical Reasoning: An Integrated Survey of Language Models, Neuro-symbolic Systems, and Verified Discovery

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    An integrated survey organizing AI mathematical reasoning into informal, formal, discovery, and technique axes while cataloging benchmarks and assessing failure modes.