Abstract
In this article, we study the problem of parsing a math problem into logical forms. It is an essential pre-processing step for automatically solving math problems. Most of the existing studies about semantic parsing mainly focused on the single-sentence level. However, for parsing math problems, we need to take the information of multiple sentences into consideration. To achieve the task, we formulate the task as a machine translation problem and extend the sequence-to-sequence model with a novel two-encoder architecture and a word-level selective mechanism. For training and evaluating the proposed method, we construct a large-scale dataset. Experimental results show that the proposed two-encoder architecture and word-level selective mechanism could bring significant improvement. The proposed method can achieve better performance than the state-of-the-art methods.
- Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv:1409.0473.Google Scholar
- Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2016. Language to logical form with neural attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 33--43.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jacob Eisenstein, James Clarke, Dan Goldwasser, and Dan Roth. 2009. Reading to learn: Constructing features from semantic abstracts. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Volume 2). 958--967. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Edward A. Feigenbaum and Julian Feldman (Eds.). 1963. Computers and Thought. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ruifang Ge and Raymond J. Mooney. 2005. A statistical semantic parser that integrates syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning. 9--16. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jiatao Gu, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Victor O. K. Li. 2016. Incorporating copying mechanism in sequence-to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 1631--1640.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2017. Neural semantic parsing over multiple knowledge-bases. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). 623--628.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mark Hopkins, Cristian Petrescu-Prahova, Roie Levin, Ronan Le Bras, Alvaro Herrasti, and Vidur Joshi. 2017. Beyond sentential semantic parsing: Tackling the math SAT with a cascade of tree transducers. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 795--804.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Danqing Huang, Shuming Shi, Chin-Yew Lin, Jian Yin, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2016. How well do computers solve math word problems? Large-scale dataset construction and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 887--896.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Srinivasan Iyer, Ioannis Konstas, Alvin Cheung, Jayant Krishnamurthy, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Learning a neural semantic parser from user feedback. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 963--973.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Rohit J. Kate and Raymond J. Mooney. 2007. Learning language semantics from ambiguous supervision. In Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1. 895--900. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jayant Krishnamurthy, Pradeep Dasigi, and Matt Gardner. 2017. Neural semantic parsing with type constraints for semi-structured tables. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1516--1526.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Nate Kushman, Yoav Artzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Regina Barzilay. 2014. Learning to automatically solve algebra word problems. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 271--281.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Chen Liang, Jonathan Berant, Quoc Le, Kenneth D. Forbus, and Ni Lao. 2017. Neural symbolic machines: Learning semantic parsers on Freebase with weak supervision. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 23--33.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Christian Liguda and Thies Pfeiffer. 2012. Modeling math word problems with augmented semantic networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems. 247--252. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 158--167.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Takuya Matsuzaki, Takumi Ito, Hidenao Iwane, Hirokazu Anai, and Noriko H. Arai. 2017. Semantic parsing of pre-university math problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2131--2141.Google Scholar
- Arindam Mitra and Chitta Baral. 2016. Learning to use formulas to solve simple arithmetic problems. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2144--2153.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Siva Reddy, Mirella Lapata, and Mark Steedman. 2014. Large-scale semantic parsing without question-answer pairs. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics 2, 1 (2014), 377--392.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 1073--1083.Google Scholar
- Minjoon Seo, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ali Farhadi, Oren Etzioni, and Clint Malcolm. 2015. Solving geometry problems: Combining text and diagram interpretation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1466--1476.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Shuming Shi, Yuehui Wang, Chin-Yew Lin, Xiaojiang Liu, and Yong Rui. 2015. Automatically solving number word problems by semantic parsing and reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1132--1142.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Yu Su and Xifeng Yan. 2017. Cross-domain semantic parsing via paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1235--1246.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Raymond Hendy Susanto and Wei Lu. 2017. Neural architectures for multilingual semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). 38--44.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 3104--3112. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lappoon R. Tang and Raymond J. Mooney. 2001. Using multiple clause constructors in inductive logic programming for semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning. 466--477. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Zhaopeng Tu, Zhengdong Lu, Yang Liu, Xiaohua Liu, and Hang Li. 2016. Modeling coverage for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 76--85.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Shyam Upadhyay, Ming-Wei Chang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Wen-Tau Yih. 2016. Learning from explicit and implicit supervision jointly for algebra word problems. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 297--306.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Yan Wang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Shuming Shi. 2017. Deep neural solver for math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 845--854.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Yuk Wah Wong and Raymond J. Mooney. 2006. Learning for semantic parsing with statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Main Conference on Human Language Technology of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics. 439--446. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- William A. Woods. 1973. Progress in natural language understanding: An application to lunar geology. In Proceedings of the National Computer Conference and Exposition. ACM, New York, NY, 441--450. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John M. Zelle and Raymond J. Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1050--1055. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Luke Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2007. Online learning of relaxed CCG grammars for parsing to logical form. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL’07).Google Scholar
- Luke S. Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2005. Learning to map sentences to logical form: Structured classification with probabilistic categorial grammars. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 658--666. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Yuchen Zhang, Panupong Pasupat, and Percy Liang. 2017. Macro grammars and holistic triggering for efficient semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1214--1223.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lipu Zhou, Shuaixiang Dai, and Liwei Chen. 2015. Learn to solve algebra word problems using quadratic programming. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 817--822.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Qingyu Zhou, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Selective encoding for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 1095--1104.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
A Neural Semantic Parser for Math Problems Incorporating Multi-Sentence Information
Recommendations
A verified packrat parser interpreter for parsing expression grammars
CPP 2020: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and ProofsParsing expression grammars (PEGs) offer a natural opportunity for building verified parser interpreters based on higher-order parsing combinators. PEGs are expressive, unambiguous, and efficient to parse in a top-down recursive descent style. We use ...
Improving Semantic Parsing with Enriched Synchronous Context-Free Grammars in Statistical Machine Translation
TALLIP Notes and Regular PapersSemantic parsing maps a sentence in natural language into a structured meaning representation. Previous studies show that semantic parsing with synchronous context-free grammars (SCFGs) achieves favorable performance over most other alternatives. ...
Joint learning of ontology and semantic parser from text
Semantic parsing methods are used for capturing and representing semantic meaning of text. Meaning representation capturing all the concepts in the text may not always be available or may not be sufficiently complete. Ontologies provide a structured and ...






Comments