File size: 101,025 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 | {
"paper_id": "P17-1015",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:18:56.790075Z"
},
"title": "Program Induction by Rationale Generation: Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Wang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ling",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Oxford",
"location": {}
},
"email": "lingwang@google.com"
},
{
"first": "Dani",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yogatama",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Oxford",
"location": {}
},
"email": "dyogatama@google.com"
},
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dyer",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Oxford",
"location": {}
},
"email": "cdyer@google.com"
},
{
"first": "Phil",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blunsom",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Oxford",
"location": {}
},
"email": "pblunsom@google.com"
},
{
"first": "\u2666",
"middle": [
"\u2660"
],
"last": "Deepmind",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Oxford",
"location": {}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"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.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P17-1015",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "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.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Behaving intelligently often requires mathematical reasoning. Shopkeepers calculate change, tax, and sale prices; agriculturists calculate the proper amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and water for their crops; and managers analyze productivity. Even determining whether you have enough money to pay for a list of items requires applying addition, multiplication, and comparison. Solving these tasks is challenging as it involves recognizing how goals, entities, and quantities in the real-world map onto a mathematical formalization, computing the solution, and mapping the solution back onto the world. As a proxy for the richness of the real world, a series of papers have used natural language specifications of algebraic word problems, and solved these by either learning to fill in templates that can be solved with equation solvers (Hosseini et al., 2014; or inferring and modeling operation sequences (programs) that lead to the final answer (Roy and Roth, 2015) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 841,
"end": 864,
"text": "(Hosseini et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 952,
"end": 972,
"text": "(Roy and Roth, 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we learn to solve algebraic word problems by inducing and modeling programs that generate not only the answer, but an answer rationale, a natural language explanation interspersed with algebraic expressions justifying the overall solution. Such rationales are what examiners require from students in order to demonstrate understanding of the problem solution; they play the very same role in our task. Not only do natural language rationales enhance model interpretability, but they provide a coarse guide to the structure of the arithmetic programs that must be executed. In fact the learner we propose (which relies on a heuristic search; \u00a74) fails to solve this task without modeling the rationales-the search space is too unconstrained.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This work is thus related to models that can explain or rationalize their decisions (Hendricks et al., 2016; Harrison et al., 2017) . However, the use of rationales in this work is quite different from the role they play in most prior work, where interpretation models are trained to generate plausible sounding (but not necessarily accurate) posthoc descriptions of the decision making process they used. In this work, the rationale is generated as a latent variable that gives rise to the answer-it is thus a more faithful representation of the steps used in computing the answer.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 108,
"text": "(Hendricks et al., 2016;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 131,
"text": "Harrison et al., 2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This paper makes three contributions. First, we have created a new dataset with more than 100,000 algebraic word problems that includes both answers and natural language answer rationales ( \u00a72).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Problem 1: Question: Two trains running in opposite directions cross a man standing on the platform in 27 seconds and 17 seconds respectively and they cross each other in 23 seconds. The ratio of their speeds is: Options: A) 3/7 B) 3/2 C) 3/88 D) 3/8 E) 2/2 Rationale: Let the speeds of the two trains be x m/sec and y m/sec respectively. Then, length of the first train = 27x meters, and length of the second train = 17 y meters. (27x + 17y) / (x + y) = 23 \u2192 27x + 17y = 23x + 23y \u2192 4x = 6y \u2192 x/y = 3/2. Correct Option: B Problem 2: Question: From a pack of 52 cards, two cards are drawn together at random. What is the probability of both the cards being kings? Options: A) 2/1223 B) 1/122 C) 1/221 D) 3/1253 E) 2/153 Rationale: Let s be the sample space. Then n(s) = 52C2 = 1326 E = event of getting 2 kings out of 4 n(E) = 4C2 = 6 P(E) = 6/1326 = 1/221 Answer is C Correct Option: C Problem 3: Question: For which of the following does p(a)\u2212p(b) = p(ab) for all values of a and b? Options:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1 illustrates three representative instances",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A) p(x) = x 2 , B) p(x) = x/2, C) p(x) = x + 5, D) p(x) = 2x1, E) p(x) = |x|",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1 illustrates three representative instances",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Rationale: To solve this easiest way is just put the value and see that if it equals or not. with option A. p(a) = a 2 and p(b from the dataset. Second, we propose a sequence to sequence model that generates a sequence of instructions that, when executed, generates the rationale; only after this is the answer chosen ( \u00a73). Since the target program is not given in the training data (most obviously, its specific form will depend on the operations that are supported by the program interpreter); the third contribution is thus a technique for inferring programs that generate a rationale and, ultimately, the answer. Even constrained by a text rationale, the search space of possible programs is quite large, and we employ a heuristic search to find plausible next steps to guide the search for programs ( \u00a74). Empirically, we are able to show that state-of-the-art sequence to sequence models are unable to perform above chance on this task, but that our model doubles the accuracy of the baseline ( \u00a76).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1 illustrates three representative instances",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ") = b 2 so L.H.S = a 2 \u2212 b 2 and R.H.S = (a \u2212 b) 2 \u2192 a 2 + b 2 \u2212 2ab. so L.H.S not equal to R.H.S with option B. p(a) = a/2 and p(b) = b/2 L.H.S = a/2 \u2212 b/2 \u2192 1/2(a \u2212 b) R.H.S = (a \u2212 b)/2 so L",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1 illustrates three representative instances",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We built a dataset with 100,000 problems with the annotations shown in Figure 1 . Each question is decomposed in four parts, two inputs and two outputs: the description of the problem, which we will denote as the question, and the possible (multiple choice) answer options, denoted as options. Our goal is to generate the description of the rationale used to reach the correct answer, denoted as rationale and the correct option label. Problem 1 illustrates an example of an algebra problem, which must be translated into an expression (i.e., (27x + 17y)/(x + y) = 23) and then the desired quantity (x/y) solved for. Problem 2 is an example that could be solved by multi-step arithmetic operations proposed in (Roy and Roth, 2015) . Finally, Problem 3 describes a problem that is solved by testing each of the options, which has not been addressed in the past.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 710,
"end": 730,
"text": "(Roy and Roth, 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 79,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We first collect a set of 34,202 seed problems that consist of multiple option math questions covering a broad range of topics and difficulty levels. Examples of exams with such problems include the GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test) and GRE (General Test). Many websites contain example math questions in such exams, where the answer is supported by a rationale.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Construction",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Next, we turned to crowdsourcing to generate new questions. We create a task where users are presented with a set of 5 questions from our seed dataset. Then, we ask the Turker to choose one of the questions and write a similar question. We also force the answers and rationale to differ from the original question in order to avoid paraphrases of the original question. Once again, we manually check a subset of the jobs for each Turker for quality control. The type of questions generated using this method vary. Some turkers propose small changes in the values of the questions (e.g., changing the equality p(a)p(b) = p(ab) in Problem 3 to a different equality is a valid question, as long as the rationale and options are rewritten to reflect the change). We designate these as replica problems as the natural language used in the question and rationales tend to be only minimally unaltered. Others propose new problems in the same topic where the generated questions tend to differ more radically from existing ones. Some Turkers also copy math problems available on the web, and we define in the instructions that this is not allowed, as it will generate multiple copies of the same problem in the dataset if two or more Turkers copy from the same resource. These Turkers can be detected by checking the nearest neighbours within the collected datasets as problems obtained from online resources are frequently submitted by more than one Turker. Using this method, we obtained 70,318 additional questions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Construction",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Descriptive statistics of the dataset is shown in Figure 1 . In total, we collected 104,519 problems (34,202 seed problems and 70,318 crowdsourced problems). We removed 500 problems as heldout set (250 for development and 250 for testing). As replicas of the heldout problems may be present in the training set, these were removed manually by listing for each heldout instance the closest problems in the training set in terms of character-based Levenstein distance. After filtering, 100,949 problems remained in the training set. We also show the average number of tokens (total number of tokens in the question, options and rationale) and the vocabulary size of the questions and rationales. Finally, we provide the same statistics exclusively for tokens that are numeric values and tokens that are not. Figure 2 shows the distribution of examples based on the total number of tokens. We can see that most examples consist of 30 to 500 tokens, but there are also extremely long examples with more than 1000 tokens in our dataset.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 806,
"end": 814,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Statistics",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Generating rationales for math problems is challenging as it requires models that learn to perform math operations at a finer granularity as each step within the solution must be explained. 17y)/(x + y) = 23 must be solved to obtain the answer. In previous work , this could be done by feeding the equation into an expression solver to obtain x/y = 3/2. However, this would skip the intermediate steps 27x + 17y = 23x + 23y and 4x = 6y, which must also be generated in our problem. We propose a model that jointly learns to generate the text in the rationale, and to perform the math operations required to solve the problem. This is done by generating a program, containing both instructions that generate output and instructions that simply generate intermediate values used by following instructions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Model",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In traditional sequence to sequence models (Sutskever et al., 2014; Bahdanau et al., 2014) , the goal is to predict the output sequence y = y 1 , . . . , y |y| from the input sequence x = x 1 , . . . , x |x| , with lengths |y| and |x|.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 67,
"text": "(Sutskever et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 90,
"text": "Bahdanau et al., 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In our particular problem, we are given the problem and the set of options, and wish to predict the rationale and the correct option. We set x as the sequence of words in the problem, concatenated with words in each of the options separated by a special tag. Note that knowledge about the possible options is required as some problems are solved by the process of elimination or by testing each of the options (e.g. Problem 3). We wish to generate y, which is the sequence of words in the rationale. We also append the correct option as the last word in y, which is interpreted as the chosen option. For example, y in Problem 1 is \"Let the . . . = 3/2 . EOR B EOS \", whereas in Problem 2 it is \"Let s be . . . Answer is C EOR C EOS \", where \" EOS \" is the end of sentence symbol and \" EOR \" is the end of rationale symbol.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "i x z v r From Id(\"Let\") Let y1 a Id(\"s\") s y2 pack",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Id(\"be\") be y3 of Id(\"the\") the y4 52",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Id(\"sample\") sample y5 cards Id(\"space\") space y6 , Id(\".\") . y7 two Id(\"\\n\") \\n y8 cards Id(\"Then\") Then y9 are",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Id(\"n\") n y10 drawn Id(\"(\") ( y11 together Id(\"s\") s y12 at Id(\")\") ) y13 random Id(\"=\") = y14 . Str to Float(x5) 52 m1 What",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Float to Str(m1) 52 y15 is Id(\"C\") C y16 the Id(\"2\") 2 y17 probability Id(\"=\") = y18 of Str to Float(y17) 2 m2 both Choose(m1,m2) 1326 m3 cards",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Float to Str(m3) 1326 y19 being Id(\"E\") E y20 kings Id(\"=\") = y21 ?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Id(\"event\") event ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "y22 <O> Id(\"of\") of y23 A) Id(\"getting\") getting y24 2/1223 Id(\"2\") 2 y25 <O> Id(\"kings\") kings y26 B) Id(\"out\") out y27 1/122 Id(\"of\") of y28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |z| Id(\" EOS \") EOS y |y|",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We wish to generate a latent sequence of program instructions, z = z 1 , . . . , z |z| , with length |z|, that will generate y when executed. We express z as a program that can access x, y, and the memory buffer m. Upon finishing execution we expect that the sequence of output tokens to be placed in the output vector y. Table 2 illustrates an example of a sequence of instructions that would generate an excerpt from Problem 2, where columns x, z, v, and r denote the input sequence, the instruction sequence (program), the values of executing the instruction, and where each value v i is written (i.e., either to the output or to the memory). In this example, instructions from indexes 1 to 14 simply fill each position with the observed output y 1 , . . . , y 14 with a string, where the Id operation simply returns its parame-ter without applying any operation. As such, running this operation is analogous to generating a word by sampling from a softmax over a vocabulary. However, instruction z 15 reads the input word x 5 , 52, and applies the operation Str to Float, which converts the word 52 into a floating point number, and the same is done for instruction z 20 , which reads a previously generated output word y 17 . Unlike, instructions z 1 , . . . , z 14 , these operations write to the external memory m, which stores intermediate values. A more sophisticated instruction-which shows some of the power of our model-is z 21 = Choose(m 1 , m 2 ) \u2192 m 3 which evaluates m 1 m 2 and stores the result in m 3 . This process repeats until the model generates the end-of-sentence symbol. The last token of the program as said previously must generate the correct option value, from \"A\" to \"E\". By training a model to generate instructions that can manipulate existing tokens, the model benefits from the additional expressiveness needed to solve math problems within the generation process. In total we define 22 different operations, 13 of which are frequently used operations when solving math problems. These are: Id, Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, Power, Log, Sqrt, Sine, Cosine, Tangent, Factorial, and Choose (number of combinations). We also provide 2 operations to convert between Radians and Degrees, as these are needed for the sine, cosine and tangent operations. There are 6 operations that convert floating point numbers into strings and vice-versa. These include the Str to Float and Float to Str operations described previously, as well as operations which convert between floating point numbers and fractions, since in many math problems the answers are in the form \"3/4\". For the same reason, an operation to convert between a floating point number and number grouped in thousands is also used (e.g. 1000000 to \"1,000,000\" or \"1.000.000\"). Finally, we define an operation (Check) that given the input string, searches through the list of options and returns a string with the option index in {\"A\", \"B\", \"C\", \"D\", \"E\"}. If the input value does not match any of the options, or more than one option contains that value, it cannot be applied. For instance, in Problem 2, once the correct probability \"1/221\" is generated, by applying the check operation to this number we can obtain correct option \"C\". Figure 3 : Illustration of the generation process of a single instruction tuple at timestamp i.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 322,
"end": 329,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 3228,
"end": 3236,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating Programs to Generate Rationales",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "h i softmax o i r i softmax r i q i,j=1 softmax q ij softmax copy input a ij q i,j+1 copy output h i+1 j < argc(o i )? v i execute",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating Programs to Generate Rationales",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "In our model, programs consist of sequences of instructions, z. We turn now to how we model each z i , conditional on the text program specification, and the program's history. The instruction z i is a tuple consisting of an operation (o i ), an ordered sequence of its arguments (a i ), and a decision about where its results will be placed (r i ) (is it appended in the output y or in a memory buffer m?), and the result of applying the operation to its arguments (",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "v i ). That is, z i = (o i , r i , a i , v i ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Formally, o i is an element of the pre-specified set of operations O, which contains, for example add, div, Str to Float, etc. The number of arguments required by o i is given by argc(o i ), e.g., argc(add) = 2 and argc(log) = 1. The arguments are a i = a i,1 , . . . , a i,argc(o i ) . An instruction will generate a return value v i upon execution, which will either be placed in the output y or hidden. This decision is controlled by r i . We define the instruction probability as:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p(o i , a i , r i ,v i | z <i , x, y, m) = p(o i | z <i , x) \u00d7 p(r i | z <i , x, o i )\u00d7 argc(o i ) j=1 p(a i,j | z <i , x, o i , m, y)\u00d7 [v i = apply(o i , a)],",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "where [p] evaluates to 1 if p is true and 0 otherwise, and apply(f, x) evaluates the operation f with arguments x. Note that the apply function is not learned, but pre-defined.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The network used to generate an instruction at a given timestamp i is illustrated in Figure 3 . We first use the recurrent state In order to predict r i , we generate a new hidden state r i , which is a function of the current program context h i , and an embedding of the current predicted operation, o i . As the output can either be placed in the memory m or the output y, we compute the probability p(r",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 93,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "h i to generate p(o i | z <i , x) = softmax o i \u2208O (h i ),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "i = OUTPUT | z <i , x, o i ) = \u03c3(r i \u2022 w r + b r ),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "where \u03c3 is the logistic sigmoid function. If r i = OUTPUT, v i is appended to the output y; otherwise it is appended to the memory m.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Once we generate r i , we must predict a i , the argc(o i )-length sequence of arguments that operation o i requires. The jth argument a i,j can be either generated from a softmax over the vocabulary, copied from the input vector x, or copied from previously generated values in the output y or memory m. This decision is modeled using a latent predictor network (Ling et al., 2016) , where the control over which method used to generate a i,j is governed by a latent variable q i,j \u2208 {SOFTMAX, COPY-INPUT, COPY-OUTPUT}. Similar to when predicting r i , in order to make this choice, we also generate a new hidden state for each argument slot j, denoted by q i,j with an LSTM, feeding the previous argument in at each time step, and initializing it with r i and by reading the predicted value of the output r i .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 363,
"end": 382,
"text": "(Ling et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 If q i,j = SOFTMAX, a i,j is generated by sampling from a softmax over the vocabulary Y,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p(a i,j | q i,j = SOFTMAX) = softmax a i,j \u2208Y (q i,j ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "This corresponds to a case where a string is used as argument (e.g. y 1 =\"Let\").",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 If q i,j = COPY-INPUT, a i,j is obtained by copying an element from the input vector with a pointer network (Vinyals et al., 2015) over input words x 1 , . . . , x |x| , represented by their encoder LSTM state u 1 , . . . , u |x| . As such, we compute the probability distribution over input words as:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 132,
"text": "(Vinyals et al., 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p(a i,j | q i,j =COPY-INPUT) = (1) softmax a i,j \u2208x 1 ,...,x |x| f (u a i,j , q i,j )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Function f computes the affinity of each token x a i,j and the current output context q i,j . A common implementation of f , which we follow, is to apply a linear projection from [u a i,j ; q i,j ] into a fixed size vector (where [u; v] is vector concatenation), followed by a tanh and a linear projection into a single value.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 If q i,j = COPY-OUTPUT, the model copies from either the output y or the memory m. This is equivalent to finding the instruction z i , where the value was generated. Once again, we define a pointer network that points to the output instructions and define the distribution over previously generated instructions as:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p(a i,j | q i,j =COPY-OUTPUT) = softmax a i,j \u2208z 1 ,...,z i\u22121 f (h a i,j , q i,j )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Here, the affinity is computed using the decoder state h a i,j and the current state q i,j .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Finally, we embed the argument a i,j 1 and the state q i,j to generate the next state q i,j+1 . Once all arguments for o i are generated, the operation is executed to obtain v i . Then, the embedding of v i , the final state of the instruction q i,|a i | and the previous state h i are used to generate the state at the next timestamp h i+1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generating and Executing Instructions",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The set of instructions z that will generate y is unobserved. Thus, given x we optimize the marginal probability function:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "p(y | x) = z\u2208Z p(y | z)p(z | x) = z\u2208Z(y) p(z | x),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "where p(y | z) is the Kronecker delta function \u03b4 e(z),y , which is 1 if the execution of z, denoted as e(z), generates y and 0 otherwise. Thus, we can redefine p(y|x), the marginal over all programs Z, as a marginal over programs that would generate y, defined as Z(y). As marginalizing over z \u2208 Z(y) is intractable, we approximate the marginal by generating samples from our model. Denote the set of samples that are generated by\u1e90(y). We maximize z \u2208\u1e90(y)p(z|x).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "However, generating programs that generate y is not trivial, as randomly sampling from the RNN distribution over instructions at each timestamp is unlikely to generate a sequence z \u2208 Z(y).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "This is analogous to the question answering work in Liang et al. (2016) , where the query that generates the correct answer must be found during inference, and training proved to be difficult without supervision. In Roy and Roth (2015) this problem is also addressed by adding prior knowledge to constrain the exponential space.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 71,
"text": "Liang et al. (2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 235,
"text": "Roy and Roth (2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In our work, we leverage the fact that we are generating rationales, where there is a sense of progression within the rationale. That is, we assume that the rationale solves the problem step by step. For instance, in Problem 2, the rationale first describes the number of combinations of two cards in a deck of 52 cards, then describes the number of combinations of two kings, and finally computes the probability of drawing two kings. Thus, while generating the final answer without the rationale requires a long sequence of latent instructions, generating each of the tokens of the rationale requires far less operations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "More formally, given the sequence z 1 , . . . , z i\u22121 generated so far, and the possible values for z i given by the network, denoted Z i , we wish to filter Z i to Z i (y k ), which denotes a set of possible options that contain at least one path capable of generating the next token at index k. Finding the set Z i (y k ) is achieved by testing all combinations of instructions that are possible with at most one level of indirection, and keeping those that can generate y k . This means that the model can only generate one intermediate value in memory (not including the operations that convert strings into floating point values and vice-versa).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Decoding. During decoding we find the most likely sequence of instructions z given x, which can be performed with a stack-based decoder. However, it is important to refer that each generated instruction",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "z i = (o i , r i , a i,1 , . . . , a i,|a i | , v i )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "must be executed to obtain v i . To avoid generating unexecutable code-e.g., log(0)-each hypothesis instruction is executed and removed if an error occurs. Finally, once the \" EOR \" tag is generated, we only allow instructions that would generate one of the option \"A\" to \"E\" to be generated, which guarantees that one of the options is chosen.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "for each instruction z i , the model needs to compute the probability distribution between all the attendable units c conditioned on the previous state h i\u22121 . For the attention model and input copy mechanisms, c = x 0,i\u22121 and for the output copy mechanism c = z. These operations generally involve an exponential number of matrix multiplications as the size of c and z grows. For instance, during the computation of the probabilities for the input copy mechanism in Equation 1, the affinity function f between the current context q and a given input u k is generally implemented by projecting u and q into a single vector followed by a non-linearity, which is projected into a single affinity value. Thus, for each possible input u, 3 matrix multiplications must be performed. Furthermore, for RNN unrolling, parameters and intermediate outputs for these operations must be replicated for each timestamp. Thus, as z becomes larger the attention and copy mechanisms quickly become a memory bottleneck as the computation graph becomes too large to fit on the GPU. In contrast, the sequence-to-sequence model proposed in (Sutskever et al., 2014) , does not suffer from these issues as each timestamp is dependent only on the previous state h i\u22121 .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1119,
"end": 1143,
"text": "(Sutskever et al., 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "To deal with this, we use a training method we call staged back-propagation which saves memory by considering slices of K tokens in z, rather than the full sequence. That is, to train on a minibatch where |z| = 300 with K = 100, we would actually train on 3 mini-batches, where the first batch would optimize for the first z 1:100 , the second for z 101:200 and the third for z 201:300 . The advantage of this method is that memory intensive operations, such as attention and the copy mechanism, only need to be unrolled for K steps, and K can be adjusted so that the computation graph fits in memory.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "However, unlike truncated back-propagation for language modeling, where context outside the scope of K is ignored, sequence-to-sequence models require global context. Thus, the sequence of states h is still built for the whole sequence z. Afterwards, we obtain a slice h j:j+K , and compute the attention vector. 2 Finally, the prediction of the instruction is conditioned on the LSTM state and the attention vector.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inducing Programs while Learning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We apply our model to the task of generating rationales for solutions to math problems, evaluating it on both the quality of the rationale and the ability of the model to obtain correct answers.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "As the baseline we use the attention-based sequence to sequence model proposed by Bahdanau et al. (2014) , and proposed augmentations, allowing it to copy from the input (Ling et al., 2016) and from the output (Merity et al., 2016) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 104,
"text": "Bahdanau et al. (2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 189,
"text": "(Ling et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 231,
"text": "(Merity et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baselines",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "We used a two-layer LSTM with a hidden size of H = 200, and word embeddings with size 200. The number of levels that the graph G is expanded during sampling D is set to 5. Decoding is performed with a beam of 200. As for the vocabulary of the softmax and embeddings, we keep the most frequent 20,000 word types, and replace the rest of the words with an unknown token. During training, the model only learns to predict a word as an unknown token, when there is no other alternative to generate the word.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hyperparameters",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "The evaluation of the rationales is performed with average sentence level perplexity and BLEU-4 (Papineni et al., 2002) . When a model cannot generate a token for perplexity computation, we predict unknown token. This benefits the baselines as they are less expressive. As the perplexity of our model is dependent on the latent program that is generated, we force decode our model to generate the rationale, while maximizing the probability of the program. This is analogous to the method used to obtain sample programs described in Section 4, but we choose the most likely instructions at each timestamp instead of sampling. Finally, the correctness of the answer is evaluated by computing the percentage of the questions, where the chosen option matches the correct one.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 119,
"text": "(Papineni et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Metrics",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "The test set results, evaluated on perplexity, BLEU, and accuracy, are presented in Table 3 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 91,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "Perplexity. In terms of perplexity, we observe that the regular sequence to sequence model fares poorly on this dataset, as the model requires the generation of many values that tend to be sparse. Adding an input copy mechanism greatly improves the perplexity as it allows the generation process to use values that were mentioned in the question. The output copying mechanism improves perplexity slightly over the input copy mechanism, as many values are repeated after their first occurrence. For instance, in Problem 2, the value \"1326\" is used twice, so even though the model cannot generate it easily in the first occurrence, the second one can simply be generated by copying the first one. We can observe that our model yields significant improvements over the baselines, demonstrating that the ability to generate new values by algebraic manipulation is essential in this task. An example of a program that is inferred is shown in Figure 4 . The graph was generated by finding the most likely program z that generates y. Each node isolates a value in x, m, or y, where arrows indicate an operation executed with the outgoing nodes as arguments and incoming node as the return of the operation. For simplicity, operations that copy or convert values (e.g. from string to float) were not included, but nodes that were copied/converted share the same color. Examples of tokens where our model can obtain the perplexity reduction are the values \"0.025\", \"0.023\", \"0.002\" and finally the answer \"E\" , as these cannot be copied from the input or output.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 937,
"end": 945,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "BLEU. We observe that the regular sequence to sequence model achieves a low BLEU score. In fact, due to the high perplexities the model generates very short rationales, which frequently consist of segments similar to \"Answer should be D\", as most rationales end with similar statements. By applying the copy mechanism the BLEU score improves substantially, as the model can define the variables that are used in the rationale. Interestingly, the output copy mechanism adds no further improvement in the perplexity evaluation. This is because during decoding all values that can be copied from the output are values that could have been generated by the model either from the softmax or the input copy mechanism. As such, adding an output copying mechanism adds little to the expressiveness of the model during decoding. Finally, our model can achieve the highest BLEU score as it has the mechanism to generate the intermediate and final values in the rationale.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "Accuracy. In terms of accuracy, we see that all baseline models obtain values close to chance (20%), indicating that they are completely unable to solve the problem. In contrast, we see that our model can solve problems at a rate that is significantly higher than chance, demonstrating the value of our program-driven approach, and its ability to learn to generate programs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "In general, the problems we solve correctly correspond to simple problems that can be solved in one or two operations. Examples include questions such as \"Billy cut up each cake into 10 slices, and ended up with 120 slices altogether. How many cakes did she cut up? A) 9 B) 7 C) 12 D) 14 E) 16\", which can be solved in a single step. In this case, our model predicts \"120 / 10 = 12 cakes. Answer is C\" as the rationale, which is reasonable.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "While we show that our model can outperform the models built up to date, generating complex rationales as those shown in Figure 1 correctly is still an unsolved problem, as each additional step adds complexity to the problem both during inference and decoding. Yet, this is the first result showing that it is possible to solve math problems in such a manner, and we believe this modeling approach and dataset will drive work on this problem.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 129,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion.",
"sec_num": "6.5"
},
{
"text": "Extensive efforts have been made in the domain of math problem solving (Hosseini et al., 2014; Roy and Roth, 2015) , which aim at obtaining the correct answer to a given math problem. Other work has focused on learning to map math expressions into formal languages (Roy et al., 2016) . We aim to generate natural language rationales, where the bindings between variables and the problem solving approach are mixed into a single generative model that attempts to solve the problem while explaining the approach taken.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"text": "(Hosseini et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 114,
"text": "Roy and Roth, 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 283,
"text": "(Roy et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Our approach is strongly tied with the work on sequence to sequence transduction using the encoder-decoder paradigm (Sutskever et al., 2014; Bottle R contains 250 capsules and costs $ 6.25 . Bottle T contains 130 capsules and costs $ 2.99 . What is the difference between the cost per capsule for bottle R and the cost per capsule for bottle T ?",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 140,
"text": "(Sutskever et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 141,
"text": "",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "(A) $ 0. Figure 4 : Illustration of the most likely latent program inferred by our algorithm to explain a held-out question-rationale pair. Bahdanau et al., 2014; Kalchbrenner and Blunsom, 2013) , and inherits ideas from the extensive literature on semantic parsing (Jones et al., 2012; Berant et al., 2013; Andreas et al., 2013; Quirk et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2016; Neelakantan et al., 2016) and program generation (Reed and de Freitas, 2016; Graves et al., 2016) , namely, the usage of an external memory, the application of different operators over values in the memory and the copying of stored values into the output sequence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 162,
"text": "Bahdanau et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 194,
"text": "Kalchbrenner and Blunsom, 2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 286,
"text": "(Jones et al., 2012;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 307,
"text": "Berant et al., 2013;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 329,
"text": "Andreas et al., 2013;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 349,
"text": "Quirk et al., 2015;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 369,
"text": "Liang et al., 2016;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 395,
"text": "Neelakantan et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 467,
"text": "Graves et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 17,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Providing textual explanations for classification decisions has begun to receive attention, as part of increased interest in creating models whose decisions can be interpreted. Lei et al. (2016) , jointly modeled both a classification decision, and the selection of the most relevant subsection of a document for making the classification decision. Hendricks et al. (2016) generate textual explanations for visual classification problems, but in contrast to our model, they first generate an answer, and then, conditional on the answer, generate an explanation. This effectively creates a post-hoc justification for a classification decision rather than a program for deducing an answer. These papers, like ours, have jointly modeled rationales and answer predictions; however, we are the first to use rationales to guide program induction.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 177,
"end": 194,
"text": "Lei et al. (2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "In this work, we addressed the problem of generating rationales for math problems, where the task is to not only obtain the correct answer of the problem, but also generate a description of the method used to solve the problem. To this end, we collect 100,000 question and rationale pairs, and propose a model that can generate natural language and perform arithmetic operations in the same decoding process. Experiments show that our method outperforms existing neural models, in both the fluency of the rationales that are generated and the ability to solve the problem.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "The embeddings of a given argument ai,j and the return value vi are obtained with a lookup table embedding and two flags indicating whether it is a string and whether it is a float. Furthermore, if the the value is a float we also add its numeric value as a feature.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Staged Back-propagationAs it is shown inFigure 2, math rationales with more than 200 tokens are not uncommon, and with additional intermediate instructions, the size z can easily exceed 400. This poses a practical challenge for training the model. For both the attention and copy mechanisms,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This modeling strategy is sometimes known as late fusion, as the attention vector is not used for state propagation, it is incorporated \"later\".",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Semantic parsing as machine translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jacob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Andreas",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andreas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vlachos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jacob Andreas, Andreas Vlachos, and Stephen Clark. 2013. Semantic parsing as machine translation. In Proc. of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dzmitry",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bahdanau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kyunghyun",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cho",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoshua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Ben- gio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv 1409.0473.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jonathan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Berant",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frostig",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Percy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "Proc. of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In Proc. of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alex",
"middle": [],
"last": "Graves",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Greg",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wayne",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Malcolm",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reynolds",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harley",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ivo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Danihelka",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Agnieszka",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grabska-Barwiska",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sergio",
"middle": [
"Gmez"
],
"last": "Colmenarejo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Edward",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grefenstette",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tiago",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ramalho",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Agapiou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Adri",
"middle": [
"Puigdomnech"
],
"last": "Badia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Karl",
"middle": [
"Moritz"
],
"last": "Hermann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yori",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zwols",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Georg",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ostrovski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Demis Hassabis",
"volume": "538",
"issue": "",
"pages": "471--476",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, Malcolm Reynolds, Tim Harley, Ivo Danihelka, Agnieszka Grabska- Barwiska, Sergio Gmez Colmenarejo, Edward Grefenstette, Tiago Ramalho, John Agapiou, Adri Puigdomnech Badia, Karl Moritz Hermann, Yori Zwols, Georg Ostrovski, Adam Cain, Helen King, Christopher Summerfield, Phil Blunsom, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Demis Hassabis. 2016. Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory. Nature 538(7626):471- 476.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Rationalization: A neural machine translation approach to generating natural language explanations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Brent",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harrison",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Upol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ehsan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"O"
],
"last": "Riedl",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brent Harrison, Upol Ehsan, and Mark O. Riedl. 2017. Rationalization: A neural machine translation ap- proach to generating natural language explanations. CoRR abs/1702.07826.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Generating visual explanations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lisa",
"middle": [
"Anne"
],
"last": "Hendricks",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zeynep",
"middle": [],
"last": "Akata",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marcus",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rohrbach",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jeff",
"middle": [],
"last": "Donahue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bernt",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schiele",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Trevor",
"middle": [],
"last": "Darrell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proc. ECCV",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lisa Anne Hendricks, Zeynep Akata, Marcus Rohrbach, Jeff Donahue, Bernt Schiele, and Trevor Darrell. 2016. Generating visual explanations. In Proc. ECCV.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Learning to solve arithmetic word problems with verb categorization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mohammad Javad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hosseini",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hannaneh",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hajishirzi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Oren",
"middle": [],
"last": "Etzioni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nate",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kushman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proc. of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Oren Etzioni, and Nate Kushman. 2014. Learning to solve arithmetic word problems with verb catego- rization. In Proc. of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Semantic parsing with bayesian tree transducers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Keeley",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bevan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jones",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sharon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goldwater",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bevan Keeley Jones, Mark Johnson, and Sharon Gold- water. 2012. Semantic parsing with bayesian tree transducers. In Proc. of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Recurrent continuous translation models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kalchbrenner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Phil",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blunsom",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "Proc. of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nal Kalchbrenner and Phil Blunsom. 2013. Recurrent continuous translation models. In Proc. of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Learning to automatically solve algebra word problems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nate",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kushman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoav",
"middle": [],
"last": "Artzi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Luke",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zettlemoyer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Regina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barzilay",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nate Kushman, Yoav Artzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Regina Barzilay. 2014. Learning to automatically solve algebra word problems. In Proc. of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Rationalizing neural predictions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Tao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lei",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Regina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barzilay",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tommi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jaakkola",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proc. of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2016. Rationalizing neural predictions. In Proc. of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Neural symbolic machines: Learning semantic parsers on freebase with weak supervision",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jonathan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Berant",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Quoc",
"middle": [],
"last": "Le",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenneth",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Forbus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ni",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lao",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chen Liang, Jonathan Berant, Quoc Le, Kenneth D. Forbus, and Ni Lao. 2016. Neural symbolic ma- chines: Learning semantic parsers on freebase with weak supervision. arXiv 1611.00020.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Latent predictor networks for code generation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Wang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ling",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Edward",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grefenstette",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Karl",
"middle": [
"Moritz"
],
"last": "Hermann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tom\u00e1s",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kocisk\u00fd",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Senior",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fumin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Phil",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blunsom",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wang Ling, Edward Grefenstette, Karl Moritz Her- mann, Tom\u00e1s Kocisk\u00fd, Andrew Senior, Fumin Wang, and Phil Blunsom. 2016. Latent predictor networks for code generation. In Proc. of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Pointer sentinel mixture models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Merity",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Caiming",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xiong",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bradbury",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv 1609.07843.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Neural programmer: Inducing latent programs with gradient descent",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Arvind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Neelakantan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quoc",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ilya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Le",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sutskever",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proc. ICLR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Arvind Neelakantan, Quoc V. Le, and Ilya Sutskever. 2016. Neural programmer: Inducing latent pro- grams with gradient descent. In Proc. ICLR.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kishore",
"middle": [],
"last": "Papineni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Salim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roukos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Todd",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ward",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Wei-Jing",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: A method for automatic eval- uation of machine translation. In Proc. of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Language to code: Learning semantic parsers for if-this-then-that recipes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quirk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Raymond",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mooney",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Galley",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chris Quirk, Raymond Mooney, and Michel Galley. 2015. Language to code: Learning semantic parsers for if-this-then-that recipes. In Proc. of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Neural programmer-interpreters",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Scott",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proc. of ICLR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Scott E. Reed and Nando de Freitas. 2016. Neural programmer-interpreters. In Proc. of ICLR.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Solving general arithmetic word problems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Subhro",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proc. of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arithmetic word problems. In Proc. of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Equation parsing: Mapping sentences to grounded equations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Subhro",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shyam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Upadhyay",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proc. of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Subhro Roy, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2016. Equation parsing: Mapping sentences to grounded equations. In Proc. of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. arXiv 1409",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ilya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sutskever",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Oriol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vinyals",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quoc",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Le",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural net- works. arXiv 1409.3215.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Pointer networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Oriol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vinyals",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Meire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fortunato",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Navdeep",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jaitly",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proc. of NIPS",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Oriol Vinyals, Meire Fortunato, and Navdeep Jaitly. 2015. Pointer networks. In Proc. of NIPS.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"text": ".H.S = R.H.S which is the correct answer. answer:B Correct Option: B Examples of solved math problems.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "For instance, in Problem 1, the equation (27x + Distribution of examples per length.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "using a softmax over the set of available operations O.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "Descriptive statistics of our dataset.",
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "Example of a program z that would generate the output y. In v, italics indicates string types; bold indicates float types. Refer to \u00a73.3 for description of variable names.",
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF4": {
"num": null,
"text": "Results over the test set measured in Perplexity, BLEU and Accuracy.",
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |