Papers › Foundation of Intelligence: Review of Math Word Problems from Human Cognition Perspective

Foundation of Intelligence: Review of Math Word Problems from Human Cognition Perspective

24 Oct 2025arXiv:2510.21999added by Syntology

Zhenya Huang, Jiayu Liu, Xin Lin, Zhiyuan Ma, Shangzi Xue, Tong Xiao, Qi Liu, Yee Whye Teh, Enhong Chen

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Math word problem (MWP) serves as a fundamental research topic in artificial intelligence (AI) dating back to 1960s. This research aims to advance the reasoning abilities of AI by mirroring the human-like cognitive intelligence. The mainstream technological paradigm has evolved from the early rule-based methods, to deep learning models, and is rapidly advancing towards large language models. However, the field still lacks a systematic taxonomy for the MWP survey along with a discussion of current development trends. Therefore, in this paper, we aim to comprehensively review related research in MWP solving through the lens of human cognition, to demonstrate how recent AI models are advancing in simulating human cognitive abilities. Specifically, we summarize 5 crucial cognitive abilities for MWP solving, including Problem Understanding, Logical Organization, Associative Memory, Critical Thinking, and Knowledge Learning. Focused on these abilities, we review two mainstream MWP models in recent 10 years: neural network solvers, and LLM based solvers, and discuss the core human-like abilities they demonstrated in their intricate problem-solving process. Moreover, we rerun all the representative MWP solvers and supplement their performance on 5 mainstream benchmarks for a unified comparison. To the best of our knowledge, this survey first comprehensively analyzes the influential MWP research of the past decade from the perspective of human reasoning cognition and provides an integrative overall comparison across existing approaches. We hope it can inspire further research in AI reasoning. Our repository is released on https://github.com/Ljyustc/FoI-MWP.

PaperPDFCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2510.21999")

Code

Syntology Ran 0 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run.

By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 3 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

Ljyustc/FoI-MWP found in paper text by Syntology report
ShangziXue/MWPSurvey found in paper text by SyntologyMIT report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

3unverified

Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ShangziXue/MWPSurvey. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

convert_number_string ShangziXue/MWPSurvey/codes/Acc_Evaluation.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · ecca13e8e988859c · report
extract_last_letter ShangziXue/MWPSurvey/codes/Acc_Evaluation.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · 5768d5eea0b4ac88 · report
extract_last_number ShangziXue/MWPSurvey/codes/Acc_Evaluation.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · 84c6416631919cdd · report

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2510.21999, was issued in October 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections