Cited by 835Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorNatural Language Processing Techniques

WikiQA: A Challenge Dataset for Open-Domain Question Answering

Open access
Yang, Yi, Yih, Wen-tau, Meek, Christopher·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

We describe the WIKIQA dataset, a new publicly available set of question and sentence pairs, collected and annotated for research on open-domain question answering.Most previous work on answer sentence selection focuses on a dataset created using the TREC-QA data, which includes editor-generated questions and candidate answer sentences selected by matching content words in the question.WIKIQA is constructed using a more natural process and is more than an order of magnitude larger than the previous dataset.In addition, the WIKIQA dataset also includes questions for which there are no correct sentences, enabling researchers to work on answer triggering, a critical component in any QA system.We compare several systems on the task of answer sentence selection on both datasets and also describe the performance of a system on the problem of answer triggering using the WIKIQA dataset.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/d15-1237

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S. Cor- rado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representa- tions of words and phrases and their compositional- ity. In Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 3111-3119.
  2. Ellen M. Voorhees and Dawn M. Tice. 1999. The TREC-8 question answering track evaluation. In Proceedings of the Text Retrieval Conference TREC- 8, page 82.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Y., Yih, W.-T., & Meek, C.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2015
Pages
2013-2018
OpenAlex
W2251818205
Cited by
829
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 1
FWCI
34.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
open-domain question answering, answer sentence selection, question-answer pairs, dataset construction

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