Elementary Math Word Problem Generation using Large Language Models

Nimesh Ariyarathne, Harshani Bandara, Yasith Heshan, Omega Gamage, Surangika Ranathunga, Dilan Nayanajith, Yutharsan Sivapalan, Gayathri Lihinikaduarachchi, Tharoosha Vihidun, Meenambika Chandirakumar, Sanujen Premakumar, Sanjula Gathsara · Jun 6, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Mathematics is often perceived as a complex subject by students, leading to high failure rates in exams. To improve Mathematics skills, it is important to provide sample questions for students to practice problem-solving. Manually creating Math Word Problems (MWPs) is time consuming for tutors, because they have to type in natural language while adhering to grammar and spelling rules of the language. Early techniques that use pre-trained Language Models for MWP generation either require a tutor to provide the initial portion of the MWP, and/or additional information such as an equation. In this paper, we present an MWP generation system (MathWiz) based on Large Language Models (LLMs) that overcomes the need for additional input - the only input to our system is the number of MWPs needed, the grade and the type of question (e.g.~addition, subtraction). Unlike the existing LLM-based solutions for MWP generation, we carried out an extensive set of experiments involving different LLMs, prompting strategies, techniques to improve the diversity of MWPs, as well as techniques that employ human feedback to improve LLM performance. Human and automated evaluations confirmed that the generated MWPs are high in quality, with minimal spelling and grammar issues. However, LLMs still struggle to generate questions that adhere to the specified grade and question type requirements.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.