Cited by 347Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies

Open access
Geva, Mor, Khashabi, Daniel, Segal, Elad, Khot, Tushar, Roth, Dan, Berant, Jonathan·2021·Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

A key limitation in current datasets for multi-hop reasoning is that the required steps for answering the question are mentioned in it explicitly. In this work, we introduce StrategyQA, a question answering (QA) benchmark where the required reasoning steps are implicit in the question, and should be inferred using a strategy. A fundamental challenge in this setup is how to elicit such creative questions from crowdsourcing workers, while covering a broad range of potential strategies. We propose a data collection procedure that combines term-based priming to inspire annotators, careful control over the annotator population, and adversarial filtering for eliminating reasoning shortcuts. Moreover, we annotate each question with (1) a decomposition into reasoning steps for answering it, and (2) Wikipedia paragraphs that contain the answers to each step. Overall, StrategyQA includes 2,780 examples, each consisting of a strategy question, its decomposition, and evidence paragraphs. Analysis shows that questions in StrategyQA are short, topic-diverse, and cover a wide range of strategies. Empirically, we show that humans perform well (87%) on this task, while our best baseline reaches an accuracy of ∼ 66%.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/tacl_a_00370

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geva, M., Khashabi, D., Segal, E., Khot, T., Roth, D., & Berant, J.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
  • Geva, Mor
  • Khashabi, Daniel
  • Segal, Elad
  • Khot, Tushar
  • Roth, Dan
  • Berant, Jonathan
Venue
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2021
Volume
9
Pages
346-361
ISSN
2307-387X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3159959439
Cited by
242
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
question answering benchmark, multi-hop reasoning, StrategyQA, data collection, human performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review