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 301–400 of 1,109
Compacter: Efficient Low-Rank Hypercomplex Adapter LayersPreprint
Mahabadi, R. K., Henderson, J., & Ruder, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.04647 · Cited by 266
XCOPA: A Multilingual Dataset for Causal Commonsense Reasoning
Ponti, E. M., Glavaš, G., Majewska, O., Liu, Q., Vulić, I., & Korhonen, A. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.185 · Cited by 262
Datasets for large language models: a comprehensive survey
Liu, Y., Cao, J., Liu, C., Ding, K., & Jin, L. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11403-7 · Cited by 268
Sinha, K., Jia, R., Hupkes, D., Pineau, J., Williams, A., & Kiela, D. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.230 · Cited by 264
A Survey of Knowledge-enhanced Text Generation
Yu, W., Zhu, C., Li, Z., Hu, Z., Wang, Q., Ji, H., & Jiang, M. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3512467 · Cited by 257
Open-Domain Targeted Sentiment Analysis via Span-Based Extraction and Classification
Hu, M., Peng, Y., Huang, Z., Li, D., & Lv, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1051 · Cited by 257
TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models
Huang, Y., Sun, L., Wang, H., Wu, S., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Gao, C., Huang, Y., Lyu, W., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.05561 · Cited by 256
Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP
Kiela, D., Bartolo, M., Nie, Y., Kaushik, D., Geiger, A., Wu, Z., Vidgen, B., Prasad, G., Singh, A., Ringshia, P., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.324 · Cited by 254
MRQA 2019 Shared Task: Evaluating Generalization in Reading Comprehension
Fisch, A., Talmor, A., Jia, R., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Chen, D. (2019) · Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering (MRQA) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5801 · Cited by 254
Searching for Best Practices in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Wang, X., Wang, Z., Gao, X., Zhang, F., Wu, Y., Xu, Z., Shi, T., Wang, Z., Li, S., Qian, Q., et al. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.981 · Cited by 254
How Much Reading Does Reading Comprehension Require? A Critical Investigation of Popular Benchmarks
Kaushik, D., & Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1546 · Cited by 252
DREAM: A Challenge Data Set and Models for Dialogue-Based Reading Comprehension
Sun, K., Yu, D., Chen, J., Yu, D., Choi, Y., & Cardie, C. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00264 · Cited by 252
Sanger: A Co-Design Framework for Enabling Sparse Attention using Reconfigurable Architecture
Lu, L., Jin, Y., Bi, H., Luo, Z., Li, P., Wang, T., & Liang, Y. E. (2021) · IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) · doi:10.1145/3466752.3480125 · Cited by 249
A question-entailment approach to question answering
Abacha, A. B., & Demner‐Fushman, D. (2019) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-019-3119-4 · Cited by 248
Kembhavi, A., Seo, M., Schwenk, D., Choi, J., Farhadi, A., & Hajishirzi, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.571 · Cited by 244
DuReader: a Chinese Machine Reading Comprehension Dataset from Real-world Applications
He, W. P., Liu, K., Liu, J., Lyu, Y., Zhao, S., Xiao, X., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Wu, H. R., She, Q., et al. (2018) · Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering (MRQA) · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-2605 · Cited by 244
WARP: Word-level Adversarial ReProgramming
Hambardzumyan, K., Khachatrian, H., & May, 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.381 · Cited by 243
Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies
Geva, M., Khashabi, D., Segal, E., Khot, T., Roth, D., & Berant, J. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00370 · Cited by 242
 3: Accelerating attention mechanisms in neural networks with approximation
Ham, T. J., Jung, S. J., Kim, S., Oh, Y. H., Park, Y., Song, Y., Park, J.-H., Lee, S., Park, K., Lee, J. W., et al. (2020) · 2020 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) · doi:10.1109/hpca47549.2020.00035 · Cited by 242
ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical ReasoningPreprint
Yu, W., Jiang, Z., Dong, Y., & Feng, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.04326 · Cited by 245
Pre-training Tasks for Embedding-based Large-scale RetrievalPreprint
Chang, W.-C., Yu, F. X., Chang, Y.-W., Yang, Y., & Kumar, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.03932 · Cited by 240
DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs
Dua, D., Wang, Y., Dasigi, P., Stanovsky, G., Singh, S., & Gardner, M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.00161 · Cited by 238
BAM! Born-Again Multi-Task Networks for Natural Language Understanding
Clark, K., Luong, M.-T., Khandelwal, U., Manning, C. D., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1595 · Cited by 241
A Survey of Evaluation Metrics Used for NLG Systems
Sai, A. B., Mohankumar, A. K., & Khapra, M. M. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3485766 · Cited by 235
Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher
Rae, J. W., Borgeaud, S., Cai, T., Millican, K., Hoffmann, J., Song, F., Aslanides, J., Henderson, S., Ring, R., Young, S., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.11446 · Cited by 235
Text Classification Using Label Names Only: A Language Model Self-Training Approach
Yu, M., Zhang, Y., Huang, J., Xiong, C., Ji, H., Zhang, C., & Han, J. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.724 · Cited by 234
BinaryBERT: Pushing the Limit of BERT Quantization
Bai, H., Zhang, W., Hou, L., Shang, L., Jin, J., Jiang, X., Liu, Q., Lyu, M. R.-T., & King, I. (2021) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.334 · Cited by 234
Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Results
Dodge, J., Gururangan, S., Card, D., Schwartz, R., & Smith, N. A. (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/d19-1224 · Cited by 233
Just Ask: Learning to Answer Questions from Millions of Narrated Videos
Yang, A., Miech, A., Šivic, J., Laptev, I., & Schmid, C. (2021) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.00171 · Cited by 232
Large Language Models Can Self-Improve
Huang, J., Gu, S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., & Han, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.67 · Cited by 230
Large Language Models Can Self-Improve
Huang, J., Gu, S. S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., & Han, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11610 · Cited by 230
Deep Reinforcement Learning for Sequence-to-Sequence Models
Keneshloo, Y., Shi, T., Ramakrishnan, N., & Reddy, C. K. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2019.2929141 · Cited by 230
BERT with History Answer Embedding for Conversational Question Answering
Qu, C., Yang, L., Qiu, M., Croft, W. B., Zhang, Y., & Iyyer, M. (2019) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3331184.3331341 · Cited by 229
Pre-trained Language Models in Biomedical Domain: A Systematic Survey
Wang, B., Xie, Q., Pei, J., Chen, Z., Tiwari, P., Li, Z., & Fu, J. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3611651 · Cited by 238
Reinforced Mnemonic Reader for Machine Reading Comprehension
Hu, M., Peng, Y., Huang, Z., Qiu, X., Wei, F., & Zhou, M. (2018) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/570 · Cited by 228
Contextualized Perturbation for Textual Adversarial Attack
Li, D., Zhang, Y., Peng, H., Chen, L., Brockett, C., Sun, M., & Dolan, B. (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.400 · Cited by 228
Do NLP Models Know Numbers? Probing Numeracy in Embeddings
Wallace, E., Wang, Y., Li, S., Singh, S., & Gardner, M. (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/d19-1534 · Cited by 227
Selective Question Answering under Domain Shift
Kamath, A., Jia, R., & Liang, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.503 · Cited by 229
Self-citationBERT Loses Patience: Fast and Robust Inference with Early ExitPreprint
Zhou, W., Xu, C., Ge, T., McAuley, J., Xu, K., & Wei, F. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.04152 · Cited by 227
TVQA+: Spatio-Temporal Grounding for Video Question Answering
Lei, J., Yu, L., Berg, T. L., & Bansal, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.730 · Cited by 225
Reformulating Unsupervised Style Transfer as Paraphrase Generation
Krishna, K., Wieting, J., & Iyyer, M. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.55 · Cited by 229
The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis for Pre-trained BERT NetworksPreprint
Chen, T., Frankle, J., Chang, S., Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., & Carbin, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.12223 · Cited by 225
Evaluating Open-Domain Question Answering in the Era of Large Language Models
Kamalloo, E., Dziri, N., Clarke, C. L. A., & Rafiei, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.307 · Cited by 232
Recall and Learn: Fine-tuning Deep Pretrained Language Models with Less Forgetting
Chen, S., Hou, Y., Cui, Y., Che, W., Liu, T., & Yu, X. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.634 · Cited by 226
Bridging Modalities: Improving Universal Multimodal Retrieval by Multimodal Large Language Models
Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Xie, W., Li, M., Dai, Z., Long, D., Xie, P., Zhang, M., Li, W., & Zhang, M. (2025) · 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/cvpr52734.2025.00866 · Cited by 225
OpenAGI: When LLM Meets Domain Experts
Ge, Y., Hua, W., Mei, K., Li, Z., Tan, J., Xu, S., Li, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/075280-0242 · Cited by 237
Cognitive Graph for Multi-Hop Reading Comprehension at Scale
Ding, M., Zhou, C., Chen, Q., Yang, H., & Tang, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1259 · Cited by 222
RoboTHOR: An Open Simulation-to-Real Embodied AI Platform
Deitke, M., Han, W., Herrasti, A., Kembhavi, A., Kolve, E., Mottaghi, R., Salvador, J., Schwenk, D., VanderBilt, E., Wallingford, M., et al. (2020) · 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00323 · Cited by 220
Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models
Elazar, Y., Kassner, N., Ravfogel, S., Ravichander, A., Hovy, E., Schütze, H., & Goldberg, Y. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00410 · Cited by 220
Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning with Diff Pruning
Guo, D., Rush, A., & Kim, 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.378 · Cited by 220
On the Stability of Fine-tuning BERT: Misconceptions, Explanations, and Strong Baselines
Mosbach, M., Andriushchenko, M., & Klakow, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.04884 · Cited by 220
Movement pruning: Adaptive sparsity by fine-tuning
Sanh, V., Wolf, T., & Rush, A. M. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.07683 · Cited by 218
Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations
Gao, T., Yen, H., Yu, J., & Chen, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.398 · Cited by 216
Cloze-driven Pretraining of Self-attention Networks
Baevski, A., Edunov, S., Liu, Y., Zettlemoyer, L., & Auli, M. (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/d19-1539 · Cited by 215
Retrospective Reader for Machine Reading Comprehension
Zhang, Z., Yang, J., & Zhao, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i16.17705 · Cited by 215
Lee, M. C. H., Braet, J., & Springael, J. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14219863 · Cited by 213
A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions
Wu, J., Yang, S., Zhan, R., Yuan, Y., Chao, L. S., & Wong, D. F. (2025) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00549 · Cited by 212
TernaryBERT: Distillation-aware Ultra-low Bit BERT
Zhang, W., Hou, L., Yin, Y., Shang, L., Chen, X., Jiang, X., & Liu, Q. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.37 · Cited by 212
QA Dataset Explosion: A Taxonomy of NLP Resources for Question Answering and Reading Comprehension
Rogers, A., Gardner, M., & Augenstein, I. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560260 · Cited by 213
Learning and Evaluating General Linguistic IntelligencePreprint
Yogatama, D., d’Autume, C. D. M., Connor, J. T., Kočiský, T., Chrzanowski, M., Kong, L., Lazaridou, A., Wang, L., Yu, L., Dyer, C., et al. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.11373 · Cited by 212
BERT-of-Theseus: Compressing BERT by Progressive Module Replacing
Xu, C., Zhou, W., Ge, T., Wei, F., & Zhou, M. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.633 · Cited by 213
KRISP: Integrating Implicit and Symbolic Knowledge for Open-Domain Knowledge-Based VQA
Marino, K., Chen, X., Parikh, D., Gupta, A., & Rohrbach, M. (2021) · 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/cvpr46437.2021.01389 · Cited by 211
CERT: Contrastive Self-supervised Learning for Language UnderstandingPreprint
Fang, H., & Xie, P. (2020) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.12308378.v1 · Cited by 211
SecureBERT: A Domain-Specific Language Model for Cybersecurity
Aghaei, E., Niu, X., Shadid, W., & Al-Shaer, E. (2023) · Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25538-0_3 · Cited by 210
FitzGerald, J., Hench, C., Peris, C., Mackie, S., Rottmann, K., Sanchez, A., Nash, A., Urbach, L., Kakarala, V., Singh, R., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.235 · Cited by 210
A Survey of Deep Learning for Scientific DiscoveryPreprint
Raghu, M., & Schmidt, E. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.11755 · Cited by 221
DataComp-LM: In search of the next generation of training sets for language models
Li, J. J.-P., Fang, A., Smyrnis, G., Ivgi, M., Jordan, M., Gadre, S. Y., Bansal, H., Guha, E., Keh, S. S., Arora, K., et al. (2024) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/079017-0455 · Cited by 213
Self-citationQuAC : Question Answering in ContextPreprint
Choi, E., He, H., Iyyer, M., Yatskar, M., Yih, W.-T., Choi, Y., Liang, P., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.07036 · Cited by 209
Self-citationWhat Happens To BERT Embeddings During Fine-tuning?
Merchant, A., Rahimtoroghi, E., Pavlick, E., & Tenney, I. F. (2020) · BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP (BlackboxNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.blackboxnlp-1.4 · Cited by 208
Should You Mask 15% in Masked Language Modeling?
Wettig, A., Gao, T., Zhong, Z., & Chen, D. (2023) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.217 · Cited by 208
Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation
Guo, Y., Guo, M., Su, J., Yang, Z., Zhu, M., Li, H., Qiu, M., & Liu, S. S. (2026) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics15091824 · Cited by 208
Understanding and Improving Transformer From a Multi-Particle Dynamic System Point of ViewPreprint
Lu, Y., Li, Z., He, D., Sun, Z., Dong, B., Qin, T., Wang, L., & Liu, T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.02762 · Cited by 209
Evaluation of Text Generation: A Survey
Celikyilmaz, A., Clark, E., & Gao, J. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.14799 · Cited by 207
Beyond Efficiency: A Systematic Survey of Resource-Efficient Large Language Models
Bai, G., Chai, Z., Chen, L., Wang, S., Lu, J., Zhang, N., Shi, T., Yu, Z., Zhu, M., Zhang, Y., et al. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3845797 · Cited by 208
NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension DatasetPreprint
Trischler, A., Wang, T., Yuan, X., Harris, J., Sordoni, A., Bachman, P., & Suleman, K. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.09830 · Cited by 207
Merging Models with Fisher-Weighted Averaging
Matena, M. S., & Raffel, C. (2022) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/068431-1287 · Cited by 206
LayoutLMv2: Multi-modal Pre-training for Visually-Rich Document UnderstandingPreprint
Xu, Y., Xu, Y., Lv, T., Cui, L., Wei, F., Wang, G., Lu, Y., Florencio, D. A. F., Zhang, C., Che, W., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.14740 · Cited by 206
Advantages and constraints of a hybrid model K–12 e-learning assistant chatbot
Wu, E. H.-K., Lin, C.-H., Ou, Y.-Y., Liu, C.-Z., Wang, W.-K., & Chao, C.-Y. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2988252 · Cited by 205
Mihaylov, T., & Frank, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1076 · Cited by 205
Stochastic Answer Networks for Machine Reading Comprehension
Liu, X., Shen, Y., Duh, K., & Gao, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1157 · Cited by 205
What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?
Bowman, S. R., & Dahl, G. E. (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.385 · Cited by 211
End-to-End Transformer-Based Models in Textual-Based NLP
Rahali, A., & Akhloufi, M. A. (2023) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai4010004 · Cited by 209
Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrieval
Xiong, L., Xiong, C., Li, Y., Tang, K.-F., Liu, J., Bennett, P., Ahmed, J., & Overwijk, A. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.00808 · Cited by 204
Generative AI in Higher Education: The ChatGPT Effect
Chan, C. K. Y., & Colloton, T. (2024) · Routledge · doi:10.4324/9781003459026 · Cited by 203
Improving the Reliability of Deep Neural Networks in NLP: A Review
Alshemali, B., & Kalita, J. K. (2019) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105210 · Cited by 203
Block Pruning For Faster Transformers
Lagunas, F., Charlaix, E., Sanh, V., & Rush, A. M. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.829 · Cited by 204
A Survey of Natural Language Generation
Dong, C., Li, Y., Gong, H., Chen, M., Li, J., Shen, Y., & Yang, M. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3554727 · Cited by 203
Adversarial Training for Large Neural Language ModelsPreprint
Liu, X., Cheng, H., He, P., Chen, W., Wang, Y., Poon, H., & Gao, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.08994 · Cited by 208
Organisciak, P., Acar, S., Dumas, D., & Berthiaume, K. (2023) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101356 · Cited by 202
How Good is Your Tokenizer? On the Monolingual Performance of Multilingual Language Models
Rust, P., Pfeiffer, J., Vulić, I., Ruder, S., & Gurevych, I. (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.243 · Cited by 202
Defending ChatGPT against jailbreak attack via self-reminders
Xie, Y., Yi, J., Shao, J., Curl, J., Lyu, L., Chen, Q., Xie, X., & Wu, F. (2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00765-8 · Cited by 208
LAMOL: LAnguage MOdeling for Lifelong Language LearningPreprint
Sun, F.-K., Ho, C.-H., & Lee, H.-Y. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.03329 · Cited by 201
Tan, B., Song, Y., Zhong, E., & Yang, Q. (2015) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/2783258.2783295 · Cited by 200
Neural entity linking: A survey of models based on deep learning
Sevgili, Ö., Shelmanov, A., Arkhipov, M., Panchenko, A., & Biemann, C. (2022) · Semantic Web · doi:10.3233/sw-222986 · Cited by 202
SG-Net: Syntax-Guided Machine Reading Comprehension
Zhang, Z., Wu, Y., Zhou, J., Duan, S., Zhao, H. Y., & Wang, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6511 · Cited by 198
ScanQA: 3D Question Answering for Spatial Scene Understanding
Azuma, D., Miyanishi, T., Kurita, S., & Kawanabe, M. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01854 · Cited by 197
Multi-hop Reading Comprehension through Question Decomposition and Rescoring
Min, S., Zhong, V., Zettlemoyer, L., & Hajishirzi, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1613 · Cited by 197
Injecting Numerical Reasoning Skills into Language Models
Geva, M., Gupta, A., & Berant, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.89 · Cited by 197
ZeroGen: Efficient Zero-shot Learning via Dataset Generation
Ye, J., Gao, J., Li, Q., Xu, H., Feng, J., Wu, Z., Yu, C., & Kong, L. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.801 · Cited by 200
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
