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 501–600 of 1,109
Do Attention Heads in BERT Track Syntactic Dependencies?Preprint
Htut, P. M., Phang, J., Bordia, S., & Bowman, S. R. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.12246 · Cited by 166
Real-Time Open-Domain Question Answering with Dense-Sparse Phrase Index
Seo, M., Lee, J., Kwiatkowski, T., Parikh, A. P., Farhadi, A., & Hajishirzi, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1436 · Cited by 160
Neural Machine Reading Comprehension: Methods and Trends
Liu, S., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Wang, H., & Zhang, W. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9183698 · Cited by 160
Machine Knowledge: Creation and Curation of Comprehensive Knowledge Bases
Weikum, G., Dong, X. L., Razniewski, S., & Suchanek, F. M. (2021) · Foundations and Trends in Databases · doi:10.1561/1900000064 · Cited by 161
How Does BERT Answer Questions?
van Aken, B., Winter, B., Löser, A., & Gers, F. A. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3357384.3358028 · Cited by 159
Ibrahim, N., AboulEla, S., Ibrahim, A. A., & Kashef, R. F. (2024) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00175-8 · Cited by 159
RecipeQA: A Challenge Dataset for Multimodal Comprehension of Cooking Recipes
Yagcioglu, S., Erdem, A., Erdem, E., & İkizler-Cinbiş, N. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1166 · Cited by 161
Question Answering on Knowledge Bases and Text using Universal Schema and Memory Networks
Das, R., Zaheer, M., Reddy, S., & McCallum, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-2057 · Cited by 158
ConvBERT: Improving BERT with Span-based Dynamic ConvolutionPreprint
Jiang, Z., Yu, W., Zhou, D., Chen, Y., Feng, J., & Yan, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.02496 · Cited by 160
Enabling Conversational Interaction with Mobile UI using Large Language Models
Wang, B., Li, G., & Li, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580895 · Cited by 156
The Argument Reasoning Comprehension Task: Identification and Reconstruction of Implicit Warrants
Habernal, I., Wachsmuth, H., Gurevych, I., & Stein, B. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1175 · Cited by 156
Unsupervised Question Answering by Cloze Translation
Lewis, P., Denoyer, L., & Riedel, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1484 · Cited by 156
Instruction Induction: From Few Examples to Natural Language Task Descriptions
Honovich, O., Shaham, U., Bowman, S. R., & Levy, O. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.108 · Cited by 160
Enhancing Pre-Trained Language Representations with Rich Knowledge for Machine Reading Comprehension
Yang, A., Wang, Q., Liu, J., Liu, K., Lyu, Y., Wu, H., She, Q., & Li, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1226 · Cited by 155
THE-X: Privacy-Preserving Transformer Inference with Homomorphic Encryption
Chen, T., Bao, H., Huang, S., Li, D., Jiao, B., Jiang, D., Zhou, H., Li, J., & Wei, F. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.277 · Cited by 155
How Context Affects Language Models' Factual Predictions
Petroni, F., Lewis, P., Piktus, A., Rocktäschel, T., Wu, Y., Miller, A. H., & Riedel, S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.04611 · Cited by 154
CrossFit: A Few-shot Learning Challenge for Cross-task Generalization in NLP
Ye, Q., Lin, B. Y., & Ren, X. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.572 · Cited by 154
Evidence Aggregation for Answer Re-Ranking in Open-Domain Question AnsweringPreprint
Wang, S., Yu, M., Jiang, J., Zhang, W., Guo, X., Chang, S., Wang, Z., Klinger, T., Tesauro, G. J., & Campbell, M. S. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05116 · Cited by 154
A BERT Baseline for the Natural QuestionsPreprint
Alberti, C., Lee, K., & Collins, M. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.08634 · Cited by 154
Semantic Models for the First-Stage Retrieval: A Comprehensive Review
Guo, J., Cai, Y., Fan, Y., Sun, F., Zhang, R., & Cheng, X. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3486250 · Cited by 153
Learning to Answer Questions in Dynamic Audio-Visual Scenarios
Li, G., Wei, Y., Tian, Y., Xu, C., Wen, J.-R., & Hu, 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/cvpr52688.2022.01852 · Cited by 153
Aya Dataset: An Open-Access Collection for Multilingual Instruction Tuning
Singh, S., Vargus, F., D’souza, D., Karlsson, B. F., Mahendiran, A., Ko, W.-Y., Shandilya, H., Patel, J., Mataciunas, D., O'Mahony, L., et al. (2024) · VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.06619 · Cited by 160
CorefQA: Coreference Resolution as Query-based Span Prediction
Wu, W., Wang, F., Yuan, A., Wu, F., & Li, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.622 · Cited by 152
Learning to Retrieve Reasoning Paths over Wikipedia Graph for Question Answering
Asai, A., Hashimoto, K., Hajishirzi, H., Socher, R., & Xiong, C. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.10470 · Cited by 152
Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023
Guo, K., Diefenbach, D., Gourru, A., & Gravier, C. (2023) · doi:10.1145/3543507 · Cited by 152
A Survey on Large Language Models with some Insights on their Capabilities and LimitationsPreprint
Matarazzo, A., & Torlone, R. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04040 · Cited by 161
ZeRO-Offload: Democratizing Billion-Scale Model Training
Ren, J., Rajbhandari, S., Aminabadi, R. Y., Ruwase, O., Yang, S., Zhang, M., Li, D., & He, Y. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.06840 · Cited by 151
DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature
Mitchell, E., Lee, Y., Khazatsky, A., Manning, C. D., & Finn, C. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.11305 · Cited by 151
(2021) · doi:10.1145/3462757.3466088 · Cited by 151
Soft Layer-Specific Multi-Task Summarization with Entailment and Question Generation
Guo, H., Pasunuru, R., & Bansal, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1064 · Cited by 151
Semi-Supervised QA with Generative Domain-Adaptive Nets
Yang, Z., Hu, J., Salakhutdinov, R., & Cohen, W. W. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1096 · Cited by 151
Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense
Krishna, K., Song, Y., Karpinska, M., Wieting, J., & Iyyer, M. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-1195 · Cited by 150
Efficient and Robust Question Answering from Minimal Context over Documents
Min, S., Zhong, V., Socher, R., & Xiong, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1160 · Cited by 150
Distilling Knowledge Learned in BERT for Text Generation
Chen, Y.-C., Gan, Z., Yu, C., Liu, J., & Liu, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.705 · Cited by 151
MKQA: A Linguistically Diverse Benchmark for Multilingual Open Domain Question Answering
Longpre, S., Lu, Y., & Daiber, J. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00433 · Cited by 150
FeTaQA: Free-form Table Question Answering
Nan, L., Hsieh, C., Mao, Z., Lin, X., Verma, N., Zhang, R., Kryściński, W., Schoelkopf, H., Kong, R., Tang, X., et al. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00446 · Cited by 150
Integrating Stance Detection and Fact Checking in a Unified Corpus
Baly, R., Mohtarami, M., Glass, J. R., Màrquez, L., Moschitti, A., & Nakov, P. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2004 · Cited by 149
B reak It Down: A Question Understanding Benchmark
Wolfson, T., Geva, M., Gupta, A., Gardner, M., Goldberg, Y., Deutch, D., & Berant, J. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00309 · Cited by 150
Deep reinforcement and transfer learning for abstractive text summarization: A review
Alomari, A., Idris, N. B., Sabri, A. Q. M., & Alsmadi, I. M. (2021) · Computer Speech & Language · doi:10.1016/j.csl.2021.101276 · Cited by 149
Improve Transformer Models with Better Relative Position Embeddings
Huang, Z., Liang, D., Xu, P., & Xiang, B. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.298 · Cited by 148
CTRLsum: Towards Generic Controllable Text Summarization
He, J., Kryściński, W., McCann, B., Rajani, N. F., & Xiong, C. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.396 · Cited by 150
Utility is in the Eye of the User: A Critique of NLP Leaderboards
Ethayarajh, K., & Jurafsky, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.393 · Cited by 147
Read + Verify: Machine Reading Comprehension with Unanswerable Questions
Hu, M., Wei, F., Peng, Y., Huang, Z., Yang, N., & Li, D. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33016529 · Cited by 147
Leveraging Context Information for Natural Question Generation
Song, L., Wang, Z., Hamza, W., Zhang, Y., & Gildea, D. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2090 · Cited by 146
Exploring and Predicting Transferability across NLP Tasks
Vu, T., Wang, T., Munkhdalai, T., Sordoni, A., Trischler, A., Mattarella-Micke, A., Maji, S., & Iyyer, M. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.635 · Cited by 146
Bottom-Up and Top-Down: Predicting Personality with Psycholinguistic and Language Model Features
Mehta, Y., Fatehi, S., Kazameini, A., Stachl, C., Cambria, E., & Eetemadi, S. (2020) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm50108.2020.00146 · Cited by 146
Conversational question answering: a survey
Zaib, M., Zhang, W. E., Sheng, Q. Z., Mahmood, A., & Zhang, Y. (2022) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-022-01744-y · Cited by 146
A Practical Survey on Faster and Lighter Transformers
Fournier, Q., Caron, G. M., & Aloise, D. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3586074 · Cited by 145
Question and Answer Test-Train Overlap in Open-Domain Question Answering Datasets
Lewis, P., Stenetorp, P., & Riedel, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.86 · Cited by 145
Sawarkar, K., Mangal, A., & Solanki, S. R. (2024) · 2024 IEEE 7th International Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR) · doi:10.1109/mipr62202.2024.00031 · Cited by 145
Hallucination Mitigation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models: A Review
Zhang, W., & Zhang, J. (2025) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math13050856 · Cited by 145
Self-citationReinforced Multi-Teacher Selection for Knowledge Distillation
Yuan, F., Shou, L., Pei, J., Lin, W., Gong, M., Fu, Y. H., & Jiang, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i16.17680 · Cited by 145
Biomedical Question Answering: A Survey of Approaches and Challenges
Jin, Q., Yuan, Z. P., Xiong, G., Yu, Q., Ying, H., Tan, C., Chen, M., Huang, S., Liu, X., & Yu, S. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3490238 · Cited by 145
EdgeBERT: Sentence-Level Energy Optimizations for Latency-Aware Multi-Task NLP Inference
Tambe, T., Hooper, C. R. C., Pentecost, L., Jia, T., Yang, E.-Y., Donato, M., Sanh, V., Whatmough, P. N., Rush, A. M., Brooks, D. M., et al. (2021) · IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) · doi:10.1145/3466752.3480095 · Cited by 145
Large-scale Cloze Test Dataset Created by Teachers
Xie, Q., Lai, G., Dai, Z., & Hovy, E. H. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1257 · Cited by 144
A Discrete Hard EM Approach for Weakly Supervised Question Answering
Min, S., Chen, D., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1284 · Cited by 144
Backdoor Attacks on Pre-trained Models by Layerwise Weight Poisoning
Li, L., Song, D., Li, X., Zeng, J., Ma, R., & Qiu, X. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.241 · Cited by 145
FedBERT : When Federated Learning Meets Pre-training
Tian, Y., Wan, Y., Lyu, L., Yao, D., Jin, H., & Sun, L. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3510033 · Cited by 144
AraT5: Text-to-Text Transformers for Arabic Language Generation
Nagoudi, E. M. B., Elmadany, A., & Abdul-Mageed, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.47 · Cited by 144
Sparse Low-rank Adaptation of Pre-trained Language Models
Ding, N., Lv, X., Wang, Q., Chen, Y., Zhou, B., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.252 · Cited by 145
BERT and PALs: Projected Attention Layers for Efficient Adaptation in Multi-Task LearningPreprint
Stickland, A. C., & Murray, I. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.02671 · Cited by 144
CERT: Contrastive Self-supervised Learning for Language UnderstandingPreprint
Fang, H., & Xie, P. (2020) · arXiv.org · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.12308378 · Cited by 144
From F to A on the New York Regents Science Exams — An Overview of the Aristo Project
Clark, P. E., Etzioni, O., Khashabi, D., Khot, T., Mishra, B. D., Richardson, K., Sabharwal, A., Schoenick, C., Tafjord, O., Tandon, N., et al. (2020) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v41i4.5304 · Cited by 143
AutoWebGLM: A Large Language Model-based Web Navigating Agent
Lai, H., Liu, X., Iong, I. L., Yao, S., Chen, Y., Shen, P., Yu, H., Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Dong, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671620 · Cited by 146
COCO-LM: Correcting and Contrasting Text Sequences for Language Model PretrainingPreprint
Yu, M., Xiong, C., Bajaj, P., Tiwary, S., Bennett, P. N., Han, J., & Song, X. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.08473 · Cited by 143
Pay Attention to MLPsPreprint
Liu, H., Dai, Z., So, D. R., & Le, Q. V. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.08050 · Cited by 142
Interpretation of Natural Language Rules in Conversational Machine Reading
Saeidi, M., Bartolo, M., Lewis, P., Singh, S., Rocktäschel, T., Sheldon, M., Bouchard, G., & Riedel, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1233 · Cited by 141
An Overview of Neural Network CompressionPreprint
O’Neill, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.03669 · Cited by 149
Proactive and reactive engagement of artificial intelligence methods for education: a review
Mallik, S., & Gangopadhyay, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1151391 · Cited by 139
Learned Token Pruning for Transformers
Kim, S., Shen, S., Thorsley, D., Gholami, A., Kwon, W., Hassoun, J., & Keutzer, K. (2022) · Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3534678.3539260 · Cited by 139
Question Answering through Transfer Learning from Large Fine-grained Supervision Data
Min, S., Seo, M., & Hajishirzi, H. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-2081 · Cited by 139
Trick Me If You Can: Human-in-the-Loop Generation of Adversarial Examples for Question Answering
Wallace, E., Rodríguez, P., Feng, S., Yamada, I., & Boyd-Graber, J. L. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00279 · Cited by 139
Recognizing Emotion Cause in Conversations
Poria, S., Majumder, N., Hazarika, D., Ghosal, D., Bhardwaj, R., Yu, S., Hong, P., Ghosh, R., Roy, A., Chhaya, N., et al. (2021) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-021-09925-7 · Cited by 139
DOTA: detect and omit weak attentions for scalable transformer acceleration
Qu, Z., Liu, L., Tu, F., Chen, Z., Ding, Y., & Xie, Y. (2022) · International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) · doi:10.1145/3503222.3507738 · Cited by 139
Structured Pruning of a BERT-based Question Answering ModelPreprint
McCarley, J. S., Chakravarti, R., & Sil, A. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.06360 · Cited by 139
Full Stack Optimization of Transformer Inference: a SurveyPreprint
Kim, S., Hooper, C. R. C., Wattanawong, T., Kang, M., Yan, R., Genc, H., Dinh, G., Huang, Q., Keutzer, K., Mahoney, M. W., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.14017 · Cited by 152
A Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Papers
Dasigi, P., Lo, K., Beltagy, I., Cohan, A., Smith, N. A., & Gardner, M. (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.365 · Cited by 138
Compositional Questions Do Not Necessitate Multi-hop Reasoning
Min, S., Wallace, E., Singh, S., Gardner, M., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1416 · Cited by 138
Context-faithful Prompting for Large Language Models
Zhou, W., Zhang, S., Poon, H., & Chen, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.968 · Cited by 141
Errudite: Scalable, Reproducible, and Testable Error Analysis
Wu, T., Ribeiro, M. T., Heer, J., & Weld, D. S. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1073 · Cited by 137
Supervised and Unsupervised Neural Approaches to Text Readability
Martinc, M., Pollak, S., & Robnik‐Šikonja, M. (2021) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00398 · Cited by 137
Yang, W., Li, L., Zhang, Z., Ren, X., Sun, X., & He, 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.165 · Cited by 137
A Survey of Reasoning with Foundation ModelsPreprint
Sun, J., Zheng, C., Xie, E., Liu, Z., Chu, R., Liu, J., Xu, J., Ding, M., Li, H., Geng, M., et al. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ac4sp · Cited by 143
Select, Answer and Explain: Interpretable Multi-Hop Reading Comprehension over Multiple Documents
Tu, M., Huang, K., Wang, G., Huang, J., He, X., & Zhou, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6441 · Cited by 136
Structured Pruning Learns Compact and Accurate Models
Xia, M., Zhong, Z., & Chen, D. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.107 · Cited by 136
Transformer for object detection: Review and benchmark
Li, Y., Miao, N., Ma, L., Shuang, F., & Huang, X. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107021 · Cited by 135
Xiao, D., Zhang, H., Li, Y., Sun, Y., Tian, H., Wu, H. R., & Wang, H. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/553 · Cited by 135
Reinforcement Learning Based Graph-to-Sequence Model for Natural Question GenerationPreprint
Chen, Y., Wu, L., & Zaki, M. J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.04942 · Cited by 135
Improving Machine Reading Comprehension with General Reading Strategies
Sun, K., Yu, D., Yu, D., & Cardie, C. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1270 · Cited by 134
Dalvi, B. B., Huang, L., Tandon, N., Yih, W.-T., & Clark, P. E. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1144 · Cited by 134
DCMN+: Dual Co-Matching Network for Multi-Choice Reading Comprehension
Zhang, S., Zhao, H. Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhou, X., & Zhou, X. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6502 · Cited by 134
Chuang, Y.-S., Liu, C.-L., Lee, H.-Y., & Lee, L.-S. (2020) · Interspeech (USB) · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2020-1570 · Cited by 134
Bi-Directional Block Self-Attention for Fast and Memory-Efficient Sequence ModelingPreprint
Shen, T., Zhou, T., Long, G., Jiang, J. B., & Chengqi Zhang, B. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804.00857 · Cited by 134
A Survey on Large Language Model Acceleration based on KV Cache ManagementPreprint
Li, H., Li, Y., Tian, A., Tang, T., Xu, Z., Chen, X., Hu, N., Dong, W., Li, Q., & Chen, L. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.19442 · Cited by 136
Cross-Lingual Natural Language Generation via Pre-Training
Chi, Z., Li, D., Wei, F., Wang, W., Mao, X.-L., & Huang, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6256 · Cited by 133
Answering Questions about Charts and Generating Visual Explanations
Kim, D. H., Hoque, E., & Agrawala, M. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376467 · Cited by 133
RealFormer: Transformer Likes Residual Attention
He, R., Ravula, A., Kanagal, B., & Ainslie, J. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.81 · Cited by 133
FedNLP: Benchmarking Federated Learning Methods for Natural Language Processing Tasks
Lin, B. Y., He, C., Ze, Z., Wang, H., Hua, Y., Dupuy, C., Gupta, R., Soltanolkotabi, M., Ren, X., & Avestimehr, S. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.13 · Cited by 138
Diwan, C., Srinivasa, S., Suri, G., Agarwal, S., & Ram, P. (2022) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100110 · Cited by 136
Pre-trained Language Models for the Legal Domain
Paul, S., Mandal, A., Goyal, P., & Ghosh, S. (2023) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/3594536.3595165 · Cited by 133
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
