Augmented Math: Authoring AR-Based Explorable Explanations by Augmenting Static Math Textbooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce Augmented Math, a machine learning-based approach to authoring AR explorable explanations by augmenting static math textbooks without programming. To augment a static document, our system first extracts mathematical formulas and figures from a given document using optical character recognition (OCR) and computer vision. By binding and manipulating these extracted contents, the user can see the interactive animation overlaid onto the document through mobile AR interfaces. This empowers non-technical users, such as teachers or students, to transform existing math textbooks and handouts into on-demand and personalized explorable explanations. To design our system, we first analyzed existing explorable math explanations to identify common design strategies. Based on the findings, we developed a set of augmentation techniques that can be automatically generated based on the extracted content, which are 1) dynamic values, 2) interactive figures, 3) relationship highlights, 4) concrete examples, and 5) step-by-step hints. To evaluate our system, we conduct two user studies: preliminary user testing and expert interviews. The study results confirm that our system allows more engaging experiences for learning math concepts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".