The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Open accessAbstract
We present the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD), a new reading comprehension dataset consisting of 100,000+ questions posed by crowdworkers on a set of Wikipedia articles, where the answer to each question is a segment of text from the corresponding reading passage. We analyze the dataset to understand the types of reasoning required to answer the questions, leaning heavily on dependency and constituency trees. We build a strong logistic regression model, which achieves an F1 score of 51.0%, a significant improvement over a simple baseline (20%). However, human performance (86.8%) is much higher, indicating that the dataset presents a good challenge problem for future research. The dataset is freely available at https://stanford-qa.com
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The type of questions to be generated range from the typical short answer span questions to multiple spans for question generation from the text [42, 47, 106, 107, 112].”
From Automatic question generation: a review of methodologies, datasets, evaluation metrics, and applications (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Both metrics assume short, span-extractable answers, an assumption fundamentally violated by Think-class models that produce reasoning traces often running to several hundred tokens.”
From When Context Overwhelms: A Study of Long-Context vs. Retrieval-Based QA Under Noise (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“We use SQuAD 1.1 which excludes the unanswerable questions added in v.2.0 that are deliberately constructed to induce mistakes so they do not in practice cause confabulations to occur.”
From Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The top-3 softmax-weighted configuration trades 1 . 6 F1 for multi-chunk fusion”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The empirically optimal k is therefore corpus-dependent: k =1 for single-paragraph evidence (SQuAD), k =2 -3 for multi-hop (HotpotQA).”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Because we use the released SQuAD reference answers verbatim and do not introduce model-assisted question generation, no additional human verification step is required.”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“We report token-level Exact Match (EM) and F1 against the gold answer set, computed via the official SQuAD v1.1 evaluation script. 1 The script applies the standard SQuAD normalizationlowercasing, stripping of punctuation, removal of articles ( a , an , the ), and whitespace tokenization-to both predictions and references before scoring”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Most datasets that are currently available for training question generation systems are crowd-sourced [42, 47, 84, 92, 114, 115, 119, 120, 122, 123], which largely impacts the quality of generated questions.”
From Automatic question generation: a review of methodologies, datasets, evaluation metrics, and applications (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We use SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) and HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) as the base datasets, which are two widely used datasets in the field of QA and QG.”
From QGEval: Benchmarking Multi-dimensional Evaluation for Question Generation (2024) · cites this paper as Rajpurkar et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our results show that, following reinforcement learning (RL) training, finetuning on self-generated synthetic data improves question-answering performance on the no-passage-in-context variant of SQuAD [13] from 33.5% to 47.0%.”
From Self-Adapting Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Standard NLP models are often evaluated on large datasets of coherent text-based questions and answers [48, 49] or paired written dialogue [68].”
From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We evaluate on a randomly sampled 1 , 000 -question subset of the SQuAD v1.1 dev split using the official evaluation script”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For tractability under the 19 tok/s edge-throughput inference configuration, we sample a fixed random subset of 1 , 000 questions from the SQuAD v1.1 dev split using a fixed random seed.”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Traditional question-answering (QA) benchmarks are typically designed to provide fixed answers to questions, as in datasets like SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) and Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019).”
From DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as Rajpurkar et al., 2016
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“We found that existing NLP datasets do not cover the wide breadth of possible conversational failure cases due to their emphasis on correct data for training.”
From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“PRECOG top-1 matches in-context RAG to within 0 . 2 F1 and 0 . 2 EM on this subset”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The total chunk count is 2 , 067 , producing a state corpus of approximately 0 . 40 GB; the corresponding sentence-encoder key index occupies under 1 MB.”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333
Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank
Marcus, M. (1993) · doi:10.21236/ada273556 · Cited by 7,405
Teaching Machines to Read and ComprehendPreprint
Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Grefenstette, E., Espeholt, L., Kay, W., Suleyman, M., & Blunsom, P. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.03340 · Cited by 2,855
Building Watson: An Overview of the DeepQA Project
Ferrucci, D. A., Brown, E. W., Chu‐Carroll, J., Fan, J., Gondek, D. C., Kalyanpur, A. A., Lally, A., Murdock, J. W., Nyberg, E., Prager, J. M., et al. (2010) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v31i3.2303 · Cited by 1,523
WikiQA: A Challenge Dataset for Open-Domain Question Answering
Yang, Y., Yih, W.-T., & Meek, C. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1237 · Cited by 829
Learning surface text patterns for a Question Answering system
Ravichandran, D., & Hovy, E. H. (2001) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.3115/1073083.1073092 · Cited by 815
MCTest: A Challenge Dataset for the Open-Domain Machine Comprehension of Text
Richardson, M., Burges, C., & Renshaw, E. (2013) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d13-1020 · Cited by 778
Building a question answering test collection
Voorhees, E., & Tice, D. M. (2000) · Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/345508.345577 · Cited by 670
Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Tasks
Weston, J., Bordes, A., Chopra, S., Rush, A. M., van Merriënboer, B., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.05698 · Cited by 670
A Thorough Examination of the CNN/Daily Mail Reading Comprehension Task
Chen, D., Bolton, J., & Manning, C. D. (2016) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-1223 · Cited by 494
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 1,109
Wang, L., Sun, M., Zhao, W., Shen, K., & Liu, J. (2018) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/s18-1120 · Cited by 82
Entity matching with transformer architectures - a step forward in data integration
Brunner, U., & Stockinger, K. (2020) · Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) · doi:10.21256/zhaw-19637 · Cited by 82
Scallop: A Language for Neurosymbolic Programming
Li, Z., Huang, J., & Naik, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3591280 · Cited by 82
Information fusion in visual question answering: A Survey
Zhang, D., Cao, R., & Wu, S. (2019) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.03.005 · Cited by 82
Huatuo-26M, a Large-scale Chinese Medical QA DatasetPreprint
Li, J., Wang, X., Wu, X., Zhang, Z., Xu, X., Fu, J., Tiwari, P., Wan, X., & Wang, B. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.01526 · Cited by 82
Levonian, Z., Li, C., Zhu, W., Gade, A., Henkel, O., Postle, M.-E., & Xing, W. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.03184 · Cited by 88
Ruan, S., Willis, A., Xu, Q., Davis, G. M., Jiang, L., Brunskill, E., & Landay, J. A. (2019) · Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale · doi:10.1145/3330430.3333643 · Cited by 81
Multi-style Generative Reading Comprehension
Nishida, K., Saito, I., Nishida, K., Shinoda, K., Otsuka, A., Asano, H., & Tomita, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1220 · Cited by 81
A Short Survey of Pre-trained Language Models for Conversational AI-A New Age in NLP
Zaib, M., Sheng, Q. Z., & Zhang, W. E. (2020) · Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW) · doi:10.1145/3373017.3373028 · Cited by 81
Classification of Shopify App User Reviews Using Novel Multi Text Features
Rustam, F., Mehmood, A., Ahmad, M. I., Ullah, S., Khan, D. M., & Choi, G. S. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2972632 · Cited by 81
Specializing Unsupervised Pretraining Models for Word-Level Semantic Similarity
Lauscher, A., Vulić, I., Ponti, E. M., Korhonen, A., & Glavaš, G. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.118 · Cited by 82
Logic-Guided Data Augmentation and Regularization for Consistent Question Answering
Asai, A., & Hajishirzi, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.499 · Cited by 81
Relevance-guided Supervision for OpenQA with ColBERT
Khattab, O., Potts, C., & Zaharia, M. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00405 · Cited by 81
SPARTA: Efficient Open-Domain Question Answering via Sparse Transformer Matching Retrieval
Zhao, T., Lu, X., & Lee, K. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.47 · Cited by 81
Bilinear Graph Networks for Visual Question Answering
Guo, D., Xu, C., & Tao, D. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2021.3104937 · Cited by 81
Semantic Structure in Deep Learning
Pavlick, E. (2021) · Annual Review of Linguistics · doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-122924 · Cited by 82
With Shared Microexponents, A Little Shifting Goes a Long Way
Rouhani, B. D., Zhao, R., Elango, V., Shafipour, R., Hall, M., Mesmakhosroshahi, M., More, A., Melnick, L., Golub, M., Varatkar, G. V., et al. (2023) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Computer Architecture/Proceedings · doi:10.1145/3579371.3589351 · Cited by 81
A Survey on Model Compression and Acceleration for Pretrained Language Models
Xu, C., & McAuley, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i9.26255 · Cited by 85
Variational Attention for Sequence-to-Sequence ModelsPreprint
Bahuleyan, H., Mou, L., Vechtomova, O., & Poupart, P. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.08207 · Cited by 81
LLM as a System Service on Mobile DevicesPreprint
Yin, W., Xu, M., Li, Y., & Liu, X. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.11805 · Cited by 82
Pre-trained Language Model for Biomedical Question Answering
Yoon, W., Lee, J., Kim, D., Jeong, M., & Kang, J. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43887-6_64 · Cited by 80
Tang, N., Fan, J., Li, F., Tu, J., Du, X., Li, G., Madden, S. R., & Ouzzani, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3457390.3457391 · Cited by 80
Scalable Educational Question Generation with Pre-trained Language Models
Bulathwela, S., Muse, H., & Yılmaz, E. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36272-9_27 · Cited by 80
Hamrani, A., Agarwal, A. K., Allouhi, A., & McDaniel, D. (2023) · Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing · doi:10.1007/s10845-023-02171-8 · Cited by 80
A Historical Survey of Advances in Transformer Architectures
Sajun, A. R., Zualkernan, I. A., & Sankalpa, D. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14104316 · Cited by 80
Liu, Z. Q., Yao, Z., Li, F., & Luo, B. (2024) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3658644.3670392 · Cited by 80
XLDA: Cross-Lingual Data Augmentation for Natural Language Inference and Question AnsweringPreprint
Singh, J., McCann, B., Keskar, N. S., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.11471 · Cited by 81
MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild
Li, Y., Li, Q., Cui, L., Bi, W., Wang, Z., Wang, L., Yang, L., Shi, S., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.3 · Cited by 79
TWEETQA: A Social Media Focused Question Answering Dataset
Xiong, W., Wu, J., Wang, H., Kulkarni, V., Yu, M., Chang, S., Guo, X., & Wang, W. Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1496 · Cited by 79
BERT is Not an Interlingua and the Bias of Tokenization
Singh, J., McCann, B., Socher, R., & Xiong, C. (2019) · Workshop on Deep Learning Approaches for Low-Resource NLP (DeepLo) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-6106 · Cited by 79
Annealing Knowledge Distillation
Jafari, A., Rezagholizadeh, M., Sharma, P., & Ghodsi, A. (2021) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.212 · Cited by 79
BioM-Transformers: Building Large Biomedical Language Models with BERT, ALBERT and ELECTRA
Alrowili, S., & Shanker, V. K. (2021) · Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (BioNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.bionlp-1.24 · Cited by 80
WebFormer: The Web-page Transformer for Structure Information Extraction
Wang, Q., Fang, Y. Q., Ravula, A., Feng, F., Quan, X., & Liu, D. (2022) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3485447.3512032 · Cited by 80
Learning Rich Representation of Keyphrases from Text
Kulkarni, M., Mahata, D., Arora, R., & Bhowmik, R. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.67 · Cited by 80
Analysis of LLMs for educational question classification and generation
Faraby, S. A., Romadhony, A., & Adiwijaya, A. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100298 · Cited by 79
Don't Do RAG: When Cache-Augmented Generation is All You Need for Knowledge Tasks
Chan, B. J., Chen, C.-T., Cheng, J.-H., & Huang, H. (2025) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3701716.3715490 · Cited by 79
A Review of Hybrid and Ensemble in Deep Learning for Natural Language ProcessingPreprint
Jia, J., Wen, L., & Liang, Y. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.05589 · Cited by 79
Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question Answering
Nan, F., Nogueira dos Santos, C., Zhu, H., Ng, P., McKeown, K., Nallapati, R., Zhang, D., Wang, Z., Arnold, A. O., & Xiang, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.536 · Cited by 78
“Our QAGen model in Q UALS is also a BART-large model fine-tuned on the SQ UAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) and NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017) datasets.”
MethodInfluential(2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.53 · Cited by 78
A Multi-Type Multi-Span Network for Reading Comprehension that Requires Discrete Reasoning
Hu, M., Peng, Y., Huang, Z., & Li, D. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1170 · Cited by 78
GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization
Gabriel, S., Celikyilmaz, A., Jha, R., Choi, Y., & Gao, J. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.42 · Cited by 75
Do Large Language Models Know What They Don’t Know?
Yin, Z., Sun, Q., Guo, Q., Wu, J., Qiu, X., & Huang, X. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.551 · Cited by 75
Agentic Large Language Models, a Survey
Plaat, A., Van Duijn, M., Van Stein, N., Preuss, M., Van der Putten, P., & Batenburg, K. J. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.18675 · Cited by 75
Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey
Mohammadi, M., Li, Y., Lo, J., & Yip, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 · doi:10.1145/3711896.3736570 · Cited by 74
“…MATSA [66], GAMEBENCH [15], BALROG [72], TheAgentCompany [ CASA [77], R-Judge [112], SimuCourt [35], MATSA [66], FinCon [111], AutoGuide [24] Harm Adversarial Robustness, Prompt Injection Resistance, Harmfulness, Bias Detection Agent Security Bench(ASB) [118], AgentPoison [13], AgentDojo [17],…”
The Effect of Natural Distribution Shift on Question Answering Models
Miller, J., Krauth, K., Recht, B., & Schmidt, L. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.14444 · Cited by 74
Miller, J., Taori, R., Raghunathan, A., Sagawa, S., Koh, P. W., Shankar, V., Liang, P., Carmon, Y., & Schmidt, L. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.04649 · Cited by 74
Self-citationDense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?
Chen, T., Wang, H., Chen, S., Yu, W., Ma, K., Zhao, X., Zhang, H., & Yu, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.845 · Cited by 74
Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answering
Adlakha, V., BehnamGhader, P., Lu, X. H., Meade, N., & Reddy, S. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00667 · Cited by 74
Mapping global dynamics of benchmark creation and saturation in artificial intelligence
Ott, S., Barbosa-Silva, A., Blagec, K., Brauner, J., & Samwald, M. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34591-0 · Cited by 73
Self-Attention Architectures for Answer-Agnostic Neural Question Generation
Scialom, T., Piwowarski, B., & Staiano, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1604 · Cited by 70
Perturbation augmentation for fairer NLP
Qian, R., Ross, C., Fernandes, J., Smith, E. M., Kiela, D., & Williams, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.646 · Cited by 69
Phan, L., Gatti, A., Han, Z., Li, N., Hu, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, C. B. C., Shaaban, M., Ling, J., Shi, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14249 · Cited by 65
“The benchmark is developed by subject-matter experts globally.”
The Optimal BERT Surgeon: Scalable and Accurate Second-Order Pruning for Large Language Models
Kurtic, E., Campos, D., Nguyen, T., Frantar, E., Kurtz, M., Fineran, B., Goin, M., & Alistarh, D. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.279 · Cited by 65
Scale Efficiently: Insights from Pre-training and Fine-tuning Transformers
Tay, Y., Dehghani, M., Rao, J., Fedus, W., Abnar, S., Chung, H. W., Narang, S., Yogatama, D., Vaswani, A., & Metzler, D. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.10686 · Cited by 63
On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detection
Chakraborty, S., Bedi, A. S., Zhu, S., An, B., Manocha, D., & Huang, F. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.04736 · Cited by 59
Length-Adaptive Transformer: Train Once with Length Drop, Use Anytime with Search
Kim, G., & Cho, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.508 · Cited by 59
On the Paradox of Learning to Reason from Data
Zhang, H., Li, L. H., Meng, T., Chang, K.-W., & Van den Broeck, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/375 · Cited by 58
On the Paradox of Learning to Reason from Data
Zhang, H., Li, L. H., Meng, T., Chang, K.-W., & Broeck, G. V. D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.11502 · Cited by 58
Can Generative Pre-trained Language Models Serve As Knowledge Bases for Closed-book QA?
Wang, C., Liu, P., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.251 · Cited by 55
Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision
Burns, C., Ye, H., Klein, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.03827 · Cited by 55
BiasAsker: Measuring the Bias in Conversational AI System
Wan, Y., Wang, W., He, P., Gu, J., Bai, H., & Lyu, M. R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616310 · Cited by 54
Question answering by reasoning across documents with graph convolutional networks
De Cao, N., Aziz, W., & Titov, I. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1240 · Cited by 54
SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detection
Wang, P., Li, L., Ren, K., Jiang, B., Zhang, D., & Qiu, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.73 · Cited by 53
Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes
Menick, J., Trebacz, M., Mikulik, V., Aslanides, J., Song, F., Chadwick, M., Glaese, M., Young, S., Campbell-Gillingham, L., Irving, G., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11147 · Cited by 53
Uncertainty Quantification and Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models: A Survey
Liu, X., Chen, T., Da, L., Chen, C., Lin, Z., & Wei, H. (2025) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 · doi:10.1145/3711896.3736569 · Cited by 53
Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations
Perez, E., Ringer, S., Lukošiūtė, K., Nguyen, K., Chen, E., Heiner, S., Pettit, C., Olsson, C., Kundu, S., Kadavath, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09251 · Cited by 53
Demonstrate-Search-Predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive NLP
Khattab, O., Santhanam, K., Li, X. L., Hall, D., Liang, P., Potts, C., & Zaharia, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.14024 · Cited by 52
Self-citationChanging the World by Changing the Data
Rogers, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.170 · Cited by 51
SOLE: Hardware-Software Co-design of Softmax and LayerNorm for Efficient Transformer Inference
Wang, W., Zhou, S., Sun, W., Sun, P., & Liu, Y. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD) · doi:10.1109/iccad57390.2023.10323725 · Cited by 51
Knowledge-Augmented Language Model Prompting for Zero-Shot Knowledge Graph Question Answering
Baek, J., Aji, A., & Saffari, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the First Workshop on Matching From Unstructured and Structured Data (MATCHING 2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.matching-1.7 · Cited by 51
“In this subsection, we further provide experiment results with additional evaluation metrics (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), namely F1 and Exact Match (EM) scores.”
InfluentialTeaching Machines to Ask Questions
Yao, K., Zhang, L., Luo, T., Tao, L., & Wu, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/632 · Cited by 44
EQG-RACE: Examination-Type Question Generation
Jia, X., Zhou, W., Sun, X., & Wu, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i14.17553 · Cited by 48
Dehghani, M., Tay, Y., Gritsenko, A. A., Zhao, Z., Houlsby, N., Diaz, F., Metzler, D., & Vinyals, O. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.07002 · Cited by 48
MoEfication: Transformer Feed-forward Layers are Mixtures of Experts
Zhang, Z., Lin, Y., Liu, Z., Li, P., Sun, M., & Zhou, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.71 · Cited by 48
Mitchell, J. R., Szepietowski, P., Howard, R., Reisman, P., Jones, J. D., Lewis, P., Fridley, B. L., & Rollison, D. E. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/27210 · Cited by 45
Generating Question-Answer Hierarchies
Krishna, K., & Iyyer, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1224 · Cited by 44
AdaLoRA: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning
Zhang, Q., Chen, M., Bukharin, A., Karampatziakis, N., He, P., Cheng, Y., Chen, W., & Zhao, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.10512 · Cited by 47
Evaluation Examples are not Equally Informative: How should that change NLP Leaderboards?
Rodriguez, P., Barrow, J., Hoyle, A. M., Lalor, J. P., Jia, R., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.346 · Cited by 47
Lee, C.-H., Wu, S.-L., Liu, C.-L., & Lee, H.-Y. (2018) · Interspeech 2018 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2018-1714 · Cited by 45
Tomayto, Tomahto. Beyond Token-level Answer Equivalence for Question Answering Evaluation
Bulian, J., Buck, C., Gajewski, W., Börschinger, B., & Schuster, T. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.20 · Cited by 44
Efficient long-text understanding with short-text models
Ivgi, M., Shaham, U., & Berant, J. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00547 · Cited by 42
Recurrent Chunking Mechanisms for Long-Text Machine Reading Comprehension
Gong, H., Shen, Y., Yu, D., Chen, J., & Yu, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.603 · Cited by 42
EvalAI: Towards Better Evaluation Systems for AI Agents
Yadav, D., Jain, R., Agrawal, H., Chattopadhyay, P., Singh, T., Jain, A., Singh, S. B., Lee, S., & Batra, D. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.03570 · Cited by 42
Reinforced Dynamic Reasoning for Conversational Question Generation
Pan, B., Li, H., Yao, Z., Cai, D., & Sun, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1203 · Cited by 40
Simplifying Paragraph-Level Question Generation via Transformer Language Models
Lopez, L. E., Cruz, D. K., Cruz, J. C. B., & Cheng, C. (2021) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-89363-7_25 · Cited by 41
Leaf: Multiple-Choice Question Generation
Vachev, K., Hardalov, M., Karadzhov, G., Georgiev, G., Koychev, I., & Nakov, P. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99739-7_41 · Cited by 45
Interconnected Question Generation with Coreference Alignment and Conversation Flow Modeling
Gao, Y., Li, P., King, I., & Lyu, M. R. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1480 · Cited by 44
A Dataset for Answering Time-Sensitive Questions
Chen, W., Wang, X., & Wang, W. Y. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.06314 · Cited by 40
SCROLLS: Standardized CompaRison Over Long Language Sequences
Shaham, U., Segal, E., Ivgi, M., Efrat, A., Yoran, O., Haviv, A., Gupta, A., Xiong, W., Geva, M., Berant, J., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.823 · Cited by 40
A Semantic Role-based Approach to Open-Domain Automatic Question Generation
Flor, M., & Riordan, B. (2018) · Proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-0530 · Cited by 39
End-to-End Video Question-Answer Generation With Generator-Pretester Network
Su, H.-T., Chang, C.-H., Shen, P.-W., Wang, Y.-S., Chang, Y.-L., Chang, Y.-C., Cheng, P.-J., & Hsu, W. H. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology · doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2021.3051277 · Cited by 38
Ahmed, T., Ivan, S., Kabir, M., Mahmud, H., & Hasan, K. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-00934-4 · Cited by 42
Open-Domain Conversational Agents: Current Progress, Open Problems, and Future Directions
Roller, S., Boureau, Y.-L., Weston, J., Bordes, A., Dinan, E., Fan, A., Gunning, D., Ju, D., Li, M., Poff, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.12442 · Cited by 38
SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. J. F. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08896 · Cited by 38
Putting the Horse before the Cart: A Generator-Evaluator Framework for Question Generation from Text
Kumar, V., Ramakrishnan, G., & Li, Y.-F. (2019) · Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) · doi:10.18653/v1/k19-1076 · Cited by 46
PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Language
Bisk, Y., Zellers, R., Le bras, R., Gao, J., & Choi, Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6239 · Cited by 37
The MultiBERTs: BERT Reproductions for Robustness Analysis
Sellam, T., Yadlowsky, S., Wei, J., Saphra, N., D'Amour, A., Linzen, T., Bastings, J., Turc, I., Eisenstein, J., Das, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.16163 · Cited by 37
Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., & Schuster, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.02814 · Cited by 37
Clinical insights: A comprehensive review of language models in medicine
Neveditsin, N., Lingras, P., & Mago, V. (2025) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000800 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
- Published
- 2016
- Pages
- 2383-2392
- OpenAlex
- W2963748441
- Cited by
- 6,208
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 335 · 2025: 492 · 2024: 506 · 2023: 1093 · 2022: 879 · 2021: 1127 · 2020: 858 · 2019: 592 · 2018: 254 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 163.81
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- question answering, reading comprehension, SQuAD, Wikipedia, dependency trees, constituency trees, logistic regression, human performance comparison, natural language understanding
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
