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
“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 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
“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 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
“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
“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 measuredIn 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]
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]
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 101–200 of 1,109
The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP World
Joshi, P., Santy, S., Budhiraja, A., Bali, K., & Choudhury, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.560 · Cited by 766
ERNIE 2.0: A Continual Pre-Training Framework for Language Understanding
Sun, Y., Wang, S., Li, Y., Feng, S., Tian, H., Wu, H., & Wang, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6428 · Cited by 766
BitFit: Simple Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning for Transformer-based Masked Language-models
Ben Zaken, E., Goldberg, Y., & Ravfogel, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-short.1 · Cited by 765
MobileBERT: a Compact Task-Agnostic BERT for Resource-Limited Devices
Sun, Z., Yu, H., Song, X., Liu, R., Yang, Y., & Zhou, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.195 · Cited by 757
An introduction to Deep Learning in Natural Language Processing: Models, techniques, and tools
Lauriola, I., Lavelli, A., & Aiolli, F. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.05.103 · Cited by 755
Wizard of Wikipedia: Knowledge-Powered Conversational agentsPreprint
Dinan, E., Roller, S., Shuster, K., Fan, A., Auli, M., & Weston, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.01241 · Cited by 755
CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation
Keskar, N. S., McCann, B., Varshney, L. R., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.05858 · Cited by 751
P-Tuning v2: Prompt Tuning Can Be Comparable to Fine-tuning Universally Across Scales and TasksPreprint
Liu, X., Ji, K., Fu, Y., Tam, W. L., Du, Z., Yang, Z., & Tang, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.07602 · Cited by 743
LUKE: Deep Contextualized Entity Representations with Entity-aware Self-attention
Yamada, I., Asai, A., Shindo, H., Takeda, H., & Matsumoto, Y. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.523 · Cited by 739
On the Cross-lingual Transferability of Monolingual Representations
Artetxe, M., Ruder, S., & Yogatama, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.421 · Cited by 730
LXMERT: Learning Cross-Modality Encoder Representations from TransformersPreprint
Tan, H. X., & Bansal, M. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.07490 · Cited by 729
QA-GNN: Reasoning with Language Models and Knowledge Graphs for Question Answering
Yasunaga, M., Ren, H., Bosselut, A., Liang, P., & Leskovec, J. (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.45 · Cited by 726
Self-citationA Comprehensive Survey of Few-shot Learning: Evolution, Applications, Challenges, and Opportunities
Song, Y., Wang, T., Cai, P., Mondal, S. K., & Sahoo, J. P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3582688 · Cited by 721
Jin, D., Pan, E., Oufattole, N., Weng, W.-H., Fang, H., & Szolovits, P. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11146421 · Cited by 718
QuAC: Question Answering in Context
Choi, E., He, H., Iyyer, M., Yatskar, M., Yih, W.-T., Choi, Y., Liang, P., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1241 · Cited by 714
“Reading Comprehension Our work builds on span based reading comprehension (Rajpurkar et al., 2016; Joshi et al., 2017; Trischler et al., 2016), while also incorporating innovations such as curating questions independently of supporting text to reduce trivial lexical overlap (Joshi et al., 2017;…”
BackgroundSelf-citationLanguage Models as Knowledge Bases?Preprint
Petroni, F., Rocktäschel, T., Lewis, P., Bakhtin, A., Wu, Y., Miller, A., & Riedel, S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.01066 · Cited by 714
NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Dataset
Trischler, A., Wang, T., Yuan, X., Harris, J., Sordoni, A., Bachman, P., & Suleman, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-2623 · Cited by 706
“Existing datasets vary in size, difficulty, and collection methodology; however, as pointed out by Rajpurkar et al. (2016), most suffer from one of two shortcomings: those that are designed explicitly to test comprehension (Richardson et al., 2013) are too small for training data-intensive deep…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMiniLM: Deep Self-Attention Distillation for Task-Agnostic Compression of Pre-Trained Transformers
Wang, W., Wei, F., Dong, L., Bao, H., Yang, N., & Zhou, M. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.10957 · Cited by 703
SimVLM: Simple Visual Language Model Pretraining with Weak SupervisionPreprint
Wang, Z., Yu, J., Yu, A. W., Dai, Z., Tsvetkov, Y., & Cao, Y. J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.10904 · Cited by 701
A Unified MRC Framework for Named Entity Recognition
Li, X., Feng, J., Meng, Y., Han, Q., Wu, F., & Li, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.519 · Cited by 697
Learning to Ask: Neural Question Generation for Reading Comprehension
Du, X., Shao, J., & Cardie, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1123 · Cited by 696
“In evaluations on the SQuAD dataset (Ra-jpurkar et al., 2016) using three automatic evaluation metrics, we find that our system significantly outperforms a collection of strong base-lines, including an information retrieval-based system (Robertson and Walker, 1994), a statistical machine translation approach (Koehn et…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBeto, Bentz, Becas: The Surprising Cross-Lingual Effectiveness of BERT
Wu, S., & Dredze, M. H. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1077 · Cited by 694
PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering
Jin, Q., Dhingra, B., Liu, Z., Cohen, W., & Lu, X. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1259 · Cited by 685
FLAVA: A Foundational Language And Vision Alignment Model
Singh, A., Hu, R., Goswami, V., Couairon, G., Galuba, W., Rohrbach, M., & Kiela, D. (2022) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01519 · Cited by 678
Entity, Relation, and Event Extraction with Contextualized Span Representations
Wadden, D., Wennberg, U., Luan, Y., & Hajishirzi, H. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1585 · Cited by 677
Textbooks Are All You Need II: phi-1.5 technical reportPreprint
Li, Y., Bubeck, S., Eldan, R., Giorno, A. D., Gunasekar, S., & Lee, Y. T. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.05463 · Cited by 677
Gated Self-Matching Networks for Reading Comprehension and Question Answering
Wang, W., Yang, N., Wei, F., Chang, B., & Zhou, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1018 · Cited by 674
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Gallegos, I. O., Rossi, R. A., Barrow, J., Tanjim, M. M., Kim, S., Dernoncourt, F., Yu, T., Zhang, R., & Ahmed, N. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00524 · Cited by 1,245
A comprehensive survey of loss functions and metrics in deep learning
Terven, J. R., Esparza, D. M. C., Romero-González, J.-A., Ramírez-Pedraza, A., & Chávez‐Urbiola, E. A. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11198-7 · Cited by 685
Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understanding
Nie, Y., Williams, A., Dinan, E., Bansal, M., Weston, J., & Kiela, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.441 · Cited by 656
BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions
Clark, C., Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., Kwiatkowski, T., Collins, M., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1300 · Cited by 655
Revealing the Dark Secrets of BERT
Kovaleva, O., Romanov, A., Rogers, A., & Rumshisky, A. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1445 · Cited by 650
Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLP
Wallace, E., Feng, S., Kandpal, N., Gardner, M., & Singh, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1221 · Cited by 642
How Much Knowledge Can You Pack into the Parameters of a Language Model?
Roberts, A., Raffel, C., & Shazeer, N. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.437 · Cited by 638
Nogueira, R., & Cho, K. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.04085 · Cited by 615
Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization
Sanh, V., Webson, A., Raffel, C., Bach, S. H., Sutawika, L., Alyafeai, Z., Chaffin, A., Stiegler, A., Scao, T. L., Raja, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.08207 · Cited by 612
AdapterHub: A Framework for Adapting Transformers
Pfeiffer, J., Rücklé, A., Poth, C., Kamath, A., Vulić, I., Ruder, S., Cho, K., & Gurevych, I. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.7 · Cited by 613
The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challenge
Kočiský, T., Schwarz, J., Blunsom, P., Dyer, C., Hermann, K. M., Melis, G., & Grefenstette, E. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00023 · Cited by 596
On the Sentence Embeddings from Pre-trained Language Models
Li, B., Zhou, H., He, J., Wang, M., Yang, Y., & Li, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.733 · Cited by 593
MIND: A Large-scale Dataset for News Recommendation
Wu, F., Qiao, Y., Chen, J.-H., Wu, C., Qi, T., Lian, J., Liu, D., Xie, X., Gao, J., Wu, W., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.331 · Cited by 577
REALM: Retrieval-Augmented Language Model Pre-Training
Guu, K., Lee, K., Tung, Z., Pasupat, P., & Chang, M.-W. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.08909 · Cited by 574
Crowdsourcing Multiple Choice Science Questions
Welbl, J., Liu, N. F., & Gardner, M. (2017) · Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT) · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-4413 · Cited by 574
Learned in Translation: Contextualized Word Vectors
McCann, B., Bradbury, J., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.00107 · Cited by 572
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569
MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Lingual Transfer
Pfeiffer, J., Vulić, I., Gurevych, I., & Ruder, S. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.617 · Cited by 577
ST-MoE: Designing Stable and Transferable Sparse Expert ModelsPreprint
Zoph, B., Bello, I., Kumar, S., Du, N., Huang, Y., Dean, J., Shazeer, N., & Fedus, W. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.08906 · Cited by 565
GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding
Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804.07461 · Cited by 562
SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.557 · Cited by 557
Open Domain Question Answering Using Early Fusion of Knowledge Bases and Text
Sun, H., Dhingra, B., Zaheer, M., Mazaitis, K., Salakhutdinov, R., & Cohen, W. W. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1455 · Cited by 554
BERT Post-Training for Review Reading Comprehension and Aspect-based Sentiment AnalysisPreprint
Xu, H., Liu, B., Shu, L., & Yu, P. S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.02232 · Cited by 553
LayoutLMv2: Multi-modal Pre-training for Visually-rich Document Understanding
Xu, Y., Xu, Y., Lv, T., Cui, L., Wei, F., Wang, G., Lu, Y., Florencio, D. A. F., Zhang, C., Che, W., et al. (2021) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.201 · Cited by 542
TVQA: Localized, Compositional Video Question Answering
Lei, J., Yu, L., Bansal, M., & Berg, T. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1167 · Cited by 541
“With the same goal in mind, Rajpurkar et al. (2016) introduced the SQuAD dataset, but their answers are specific spans from long passages.”
BackgroundMS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset.
Nguyen, T. G., Rosenberg, M., Xia, S., Gao, J., Tiwary, S., Majumder, R., & Deng, L. (2016) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 539
The Computational Limits of Deep Learning
Thompson, N. C., Greenewald, K., Lee, K., & Manso, G. F. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.05558 · Cited by 538
CodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generation
Lu, S., Guo, D., Ren, S., Huang, J., Svyatkovskiy, A., Blanco, A., Clement, C., Drain, D., Jiang, D., Tang, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.04664 · Cited by 536
End-to-End Open-Domain Question Answering with BERTserini
Yang, W., Xie, Y., Lin, A., Li, X., Tan, L., Xiong, K., Li, M., & Lin, J. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-4013 · Cited by 535
Qi, X., Chen, G., Li, Y., Cheng, X., & Li, C. (2019) · Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.eng.2019.04.012 · Cited by 529
The Web as a Knowledge-Base for Answering Complex Questions
Talmor, A., & Berant, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1059 · Cited by 520
The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing
Schrimpf, M., Blank, I. A., Tuckute, G., Kauf, C., Hosseini, E. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2105646118 · Cited by 517
A Systematic Review of Automatic Question Generation for Educational Purposes
Kurdi, G., Leo, J., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., & Al-Emari, S. (2020) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-019-00186-y · Cited by 514
UNIFIEDQA: Crossing Format Boundaries with a Single QA System
Khashabi, D., Min, S., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., Tafjord, O., Clark, P., & Hajishirzi, H. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.171 · Cited by 514
Sentence Encoders on STILTs: Supplementary Training on Intermediate Labeled-data Tasks
Phang, J., Févry, T., & Bowman, S. R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.01088
MLQA: Evaluating Cross-lingual Extractive Question Answering
Lewis, P., Oğuz, B., Rinott, R., Riedel, S., & Schwenk, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.653 · Cited by 509
LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in English
Chalkidis, I., Jana, A., Hartung, D., Bommarito, M. J., Androutsopoulos, I., Katz, D. M., & Αλέτρας, Ν. (2021) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.297 · Cited by 511
Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783 · Cited by 505
Self-citationDynamic Coattention Networks For Question AnsweringPreprint
Xiong, C., Zhong, V., & Socher, R. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01604 · Cited by 504
Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.13586 · Cited by 4,352
“SQuAD [108]), multiple-choice QA (where the model has to pick from several choices; e.”
BackgroundMulti-Modality Cross Attention Network for Image and Sentence Matching
Wei, X., Zhang, T., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., & Wu, F. (2020) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.01095 · Cited by 494
Overview of the Transformer-based Models for NLP Tasks
Gillioz, A., Casas, J., Mugellini, E., & Khaled, O. A. (2020) · Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems · doi:10.15439/2020f20 · Cited by 492
TaBERT: Pretraining for Joint Understanding of Textual and Tabular Data
Yin, P., Neubig, G., Yih, W.-T., & Riedel, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.745 · Cited by 487
PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question AnsweringPreprint
Jin, Q., Dhingra, B., Liu, Z., Cohen, W. W., & Lu, X. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.06146 · Cited by 487
Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension
Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/k17-1034 · Cited by 482
“The task of obtaining answer spans to natural-language questions has been recently studied on the SQuAD dataset (Rajpurkar et al., 2016; Xiong et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHolistic Evaluation of Language Models
Bommasani, R., Liang, P., & Lee, T. (2023) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15007 · Cited by 480
Self-citationClark, J. H., Choi, E., Collins, M., Garrette, D., Kwiatkowski, T., Nikolaev, V., & Palomaki, J. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00317 · Cited by 477
Welbl, J., Stenetorp, P., & Riedel, S. (2018) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00021 · Cited by 474
MURA: Large Dataset for Abnormality Detection in Musculoskeletal RadiographsPreprint
Rajpurkar, P., Irvin, J., Bagul, A., Ding, D. Y., Duan, T., Mehta, H., Yang, B., Zhu, K., Laird, D., Ball, R. L., et al. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.06957 · Cited by 470
Self-citationMachine Comprehension Using Match-LSTM and Answer PointerPreprint
Wang, S., & Jiang, J. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1608.07905 · Cited by 469
ProphetNet: Predicting Future N-gram for Sequence-to-SequencePre-training
Qi, W., Yan, Y., Gong, Y., Liu, D., Duan, N., Chen, J., Zhang, R., & Zhou, M. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.217 · Cited by 459
Event Extraction by Answering (Almost) Natural Questions
Du, X., & Cardie, C. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.49 · Cited by 459
ARBERT & MARBERT: Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Arabic
Abdul-Mageed, M., Elmadany, A., & Nagoudi, E. M. B. (2021) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.551 · Cited by 459
LinkBERT: Pretraining Language Models with Document Links
Yasunaga, M., Leskovec, J., & Liang, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.551 · Cited by 474
Self-citationSemantically Equivalent Adversarial Rules for Debugging NLP models
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1079 · Cited by 457
Enriching Pre-trained Language Model with Entity Information for Relation Classification
Wu, S., & He, Y. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3357384.3358119 · Cited by 460
The Natural Language Decathlon: Multitask Learning as Question Answering
McCann, B., Keskar, N. S., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.08730 · Cited by 448
A Robustly Optimized BERT Pre-training Approach with Post-training
Liu, Z., Lin, W., Shi, Y., & Zhao, J. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84186-7_31 · Cited by 446
Das, A., Kottur, S., Gupta, K., Singh, A., Yadav, D., Moura, J. M. F., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.121 · Cited by 445
Spanish Pre-trained BERT Model and Evaluation DataPreprint
Cañete, J., Chaperon, G., Fuentes, R., Ho, J.-H., Kang, H., & Pérez, J. E. P. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.02976 · Cited by 449
Target-Dependent Sentiment Classification With BERT
Gao, Z., Feng, A., Song, X., & Wu, X. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2946594 · Cited by 444
Zafrir, O., Boudoukh, G., Izsak, P., & Wasserblat, M. (2019) · 2019 Fifth Workshop on Energy Efficient Machine Learning and Cognitive Computing - NeurIPS Edition (EMC2-NIPS) · doi:10.1109/emc2-nips53020.2019.00016 · Cited by 442
Jiang, H., He, P., Chen, W., Liu, X., Gao, J., & Zhao, T. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.197 · Cited by 446
Q-BERT: Hessian Based Ultra Low Precision Quantization of BERT
Shen, S., Dong, Z., Ye, J., Ma, L., Yao, Z., Gholami, A., Mahoney, M. W., & Keutzer, K. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6409 · Cited by 437
Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamics
Swayamdipta, S., Schwartz, R., Lourie, N., Wang, Y., Hajishirzi, H., Smith, N. A., & Choi, Y. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.746 · Cited by 438
Simple and Effective Multi-Paragraph Reading Comprehension
Clark, C., & Gardner, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1078 · Cited by 434
Multilingual Universal Sentence Encoder for Semantic Retrieval
Yang, Y., Cer, D. M., Ahmad, A., Guo, M., Law, J., Constant, N., Ábrego, G. H., Yuan, S., Tar, C., Sung, Y.-H., et al. (2020) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (ACL Demo) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.12 · Cited by 432
Entity-Relation Extraction as Multi-Turn Question Answering
Li, X., Yin, F., Sun, Z., Li, X., Yuan, A., Chai, D., Zhou, M., & Li, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1129 · Cited by 431
LogiQA: A Challenge Dataset for Machine Reading Comprehension with Logical Reasoning
Jian, L., Cui, L., Liu, H., Huang, D., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/501 · Cited by 431
Multilingual is not enough: BERT for FinnishPreprint
Virtanen, A., Kanerva, J., Ilo, R., Luoma, J., Luotolahti, J., Salakoski, T., Ginter, F., & Pyysalo, S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.07076 · Cited by 441
SpAtten: Efficient Sparse Attention Architecture with Cascade Token and Head Pruning
Wang, H., Zhang, Z., & Han, S. (2021) · 2021 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) · doi:10.1109/hpca51647.2021.00018 · Cited by 427
Neural Approaches to Conversational AI
Gao, J., Galley, M., & Li, L. (2019) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000074 · Cited by 424
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
