Why Machine Reading Comprehension Models Learn Shortcuts?
Open accessAbstract
Recent studies report that many machine reading comprehension (MRC) models can perform closely to or even better than humans on benchmark datasets.However, existing works indicate that many MRC models may learn shortcuts to outwit these benchmarks, but the performance is unsatisfactory in real-world applications.In this work, we attempt to explore, instead of the expected comprehension skills, why these models learn the shortcuts.Based on the observation that a large portion of questions in current datasets have shortcut solutions, we argue that larger proportion of shortcut questions in training data make models rely on shortcut tricks excessively.To investigate this hypothesis, we carefully design two synthetic datasets with annotations that indicate whether a question can be answered using shortcut solutions.We further propose two new methods to quantitatively analyze the learning difficulty regarding shortcut and challenging questions, and revealing the inherent learning mechanism behind the different performance between the two kinds of questions.A thorough empirical analysis shows that MRC models tend to learn shortcut questions earlier than challenging questions, and the high proportions of shortcut questions in training sets hinder models from exploring the sophisticated reasoning skills in the later stage of training.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In reading comprehension tasks, fine-tuned models tend to focus on lexical matching of words between the question and the original passage, neglecting the intended reading comprehension task itself.
“For example, in reading comprehension tasks, fine-tuned models tend to focus on the lexical matching of words between the question and the original passage, neglecting the intended reading comprehension task itself [63].”
From Harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [63]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Lai, Y., Zhang, C., Feng, Y., Huang, Q., & Zhao, D.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Venue
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 989-1002
- OpenAlex
- W3174409617
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 3.58
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61672057, 61672058)
- 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
- machine reading comprehension, shortcut learning, synthetic dataset, learning difficulties, training data composition, reasoning skills
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