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
“Most datasets that are currently available for training question generation systems are crowd-sourced [42, 47, 84, 92, 114, 115, 119, 120, 122, 123], which largely impacts the quality of generated questions.”
From Automatic question generation: a review of methodologies, datasets, evaluation metrics, and applications (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We use SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) and HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) as the base datasets, which are two widely used datasets in the field of QA and QG.”
From QGEval: Benchmarking Multi-dimensional Evaluation for Question Generation (2024) · cites this paper as Rajpurkar et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our results show that, following reinforcement learning (RL) training, finetuning on self-generated synthetic data improves question-answering performance on the no-passage-in-context variant of SQuAD [13] from 33.5% to 47.0%.”
From Self-Adapting Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Standard NLP models are often evaluated on large datasets of coherent text-based questions and answers [48, 49] or paired written dialogue [68].”
From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We evaluate on a randomly sampled 1 , 000 -question subset of the SQuAD v1.1 dev split using the official evaluation script”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For tractability under the 19 tok/s edge-throughput inference configuration, we sample a fixed random subset of 1 , 000 questions from the SQuAD v1.1 dev split using a fixed random seed.”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Traditional question-answering (QA) benchmarks are typically designed to provide fixed answers to questions, as in datasets like SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) and Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019).”
From DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as Rajpurkar et al., 2016
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“We found that existing NLP datasets do not cover the wide breadth of possible conversational failure cases due to their emphasis on correct data for training.”
From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“PRECOG top-1 matches in-context RAG to within 0 . 2 F1 and 0 . 2 EM on this subset”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The total chunk count is 2 , 067 , producing a state corpus of approximately 0 . 40 GB; the corresponding sentence-encoder key index occupies under 1 MB.”
From Structured Memory for Edge Language Models: Persistent Context and Corpus Retrieval via O(1) SSM State Injection (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet 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]
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 701–800 of 1,109
Beyond Chinchilla-Optimal: Accounting for Inference in Language Model Scaling LawsPreprint
Sardana, N., Portes, J., Doubov, S., & Frankle, J. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.00448 · Cited by 112
Thieves on Sesame Street! Model Extraction of BERT-based APIs
Krishna, K., Tomar, G. S., Parikh, A. P., Papernot, N., & Iyyer, M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.12366 · Cited by 111
LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in English
Chalkidis, I., Jana, A., Hartung, D., Bommarito, M. J., Androutsopoulos, I., Katz, D. M., & Aletras, N. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3936759 · Cited by 111
What Makes Reading Comprehension Questions Easier?
Sugawara, S., Inui, K., Sekine, S., & Aizawa, A. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1453 · Cited by 111
FAQ Retrieval using Query-Question Similarity and BERT-Based Query-Answer Relevance
Sakata, W., Shibata, T., Tanaka, R., & Kurohashi, S. (2019) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3331184.3331326 · Cited by 111
Robust Machine Comprehension Models via Adversarial Training
Wang, Y., & Bansal, M. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2091 · Cited by 111
Parallel Context Windows for Large Language Models
Ratner, N., Levine, Y., Belinkov, Y., Ram, O., Magar, I., Abend, O., Karpas, E., Shashua, A., Leyton-Brown, K., & Shoham, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.352 · Cited by 111
BiBERT: Accurate Fully Binarized BERT
Qin, H., Ding, Y., Zhang, M., Yan, Q., Liu, A., Dang, Q., Liu, Z., & Liu, X. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.06390
CLUTRR: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Inductive Reasoning from Text
Sinha, K., Sodhani, S., Dong, J., Pineau, J., & Hamilton, W. L. (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/d19-1458 · Cited by 110
Automatic Judgment Prediction via Legal Reading Comprehension
Long, S., Tu, C., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32381-3_45 · Cited by 110
Reasoning Over Paragraph Effects in Situations
Lin, K., Tafjord, O., Clark, P. E., & Gardner, M. (2019) · Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering (MRQA) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5808 · Cited by 110
Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer with Meta Learning
Nooralahzadeh, F., Bekoulis, G., Bjerva, J., & Augenstein, I. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.368 · Cited by 110
It’s Morphin’ Time! Combating Linguistic Discrimination with Inflectional Perturbations
Tan, S., Joty, S., Kan, M., & Socher, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.263 · Cited by 111
Liu, F., Vulić, I., Korhonen, A., & Collier, N. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.109 · Cited by 110
Lifting the Curse of Multilinguality by Pre-training Modular Transformers
Pfeiffer, J., Goyal, N., Lin, X., Li, X., Cross, J., Riedel, S., & Artetxe, M. (2022) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.255 · Cited by 110
VL-CheckList: Evaluating Pre-trained Vision-Language Models with Objects, Attributes and RelationsPreprint
Zhao, T., Zhang, T., Zhu, M., Shen, H., Lee, K., Lu, X., & Yin, J. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.00221 · Cited by 110
HalluLens: LLM Hallucination BenchmarkPreprint
Bang, Y., Ji, Z., Schelten, A., Hartshorn, A., Fowler, T., Zhang, C., Cancedda, N., & Fung, P. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.17550 · Cited by 110
Jiang, P., Lin, J., Cao, L., Tian, R., Kang, S., Wang, Z., Sun, J., & Han, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00223 · Cited by 115
SmBoP: Semi-autoregressive Bottom-up Semantic Parsing
Rubin, O., & Berant, 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.29 · Cited by 109
Metacognitive Prompting Improves Understanding in Large Language Models
Wang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2024) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.106 · Cited by 109
Multi-Perspective Context Matching for Machine ComprehensionPreprint
Wang, Z., Mi, H., Hamza, W., & Florian, R. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.04211 · Cited by 109
Learning to Retrieve Reasoning Paths over Wikipedia Graph for Question Answering
Asai, A. (2025) · TIB Data Manager · doi:10.57702/2jfyctjr · Cited by 109
The Turking Test: Can Language Models Understand Instructions?Preprint
Efrat, A., & Levy, O. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.11982 · Cited by 109
ATOM3D: Tasks On Molecules in Three DimensionsPreprint
Townshend, R. J. L., Vögele, M., Suriana, P., Derry, A., Powers, A. S., Laloudakis, Y. D., Balachandar, S., Jing, B., Anderson, B., Eismann, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.30339.73765 · Cited by 109
NumNet: Machine Reading Comprehension with Numerical Reasoning
Ran, Q., Lin, Y., Li, P., Zhou, J., & Liu, Z. (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/d19-1251 · Cited by 108
The Effect of Different Writing Tasks on Linguistic Style: A Case Study of the ROC Story Cloze Task
Schwartz, R., Sap, M., Konstas, I., Zilles, L., Choi, Y., & Smith, N. A. (2017) · Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning · doi:10.18653/v1/k17-1004 · Cited by 108
Can You Tell Me How to Get Past Sesame Street? Sentence-Level Pretraining Beyond Language Modeling
Wang, A., Hůla, J., Xia, P., Pappagari, R. R., McCoy, R. T., Patel, R., Kim, N., Tenney, I. F., Huang, Y., Yu, K., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1439 · Cited by 109
A Survey on Machine Reading Comprehension Systems
Baradaran, R., Ghiasi, R., & Amirkhani, H. (2022) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324921000395 · Cited by 108
Introduction to neural network‐based question answering over knowledge graphs
Chakraborty, N., Lukovnikov, D., Maheshwari, G., Trivedi, P., Lehmann, J., & Fischer, A. (2021) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1389 · Cited by 109
SituatedQA: Incorporating Extra-Linguistic Contexts into QA
Zhang, M. J. Q., & Choi, E. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.586 · Cited by 108
When Search Engine Services Meet Large Language Models: Visions and Challenges
Xiong, H., Bian, J., Li, Y., Li, X., Du, M., Wang, S., Yin, D., & Helal, S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/tsc.2024.3451185 · Cited by 111
Alchemy: A Quantum Chemistry Dataset for Benchmarking AI ModelsPreprint
Chen, G., Chen, P., Hsieh, C., Lee, C., Liao, B., Liao, R., Liu, W., Qiu, J., Sun, Q., Tang, J., et al. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.09427 · Cited by 113
Investigating Data Contamination for Pre-training Language ModelsPreprint
Jiang, M., Liu, K. Z., Zhong, M., Schaeffer, R., Ouyang, S., Han, J., & Koyejo, S. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.06059 · Cited by 108
Principles and Guidelines for Evaluating Social Robot Navigation Algorithms
Francis, A., Pérez-D’Arpino, C., Li, C., Xia, F., Alahi, A., Alami, R., Bera, A., Biswas, A., Biswas, J., Chandra, R., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3700599 · Cited by 107
Pham, T. M., Bui, T., Mai, L., & Nguyen, A. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.98 · Cited by 107
Early-Exit Deep Neural Network - A Comprehensive Survey
Haseena Rahmath, P., Srivastava, V., Chaurasia, K., Pacheco, R. G., & Couto, R. S. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3698767 · Cited by 107
Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2022
Guo, K., Defretiere, C., Diefenbach, D., Gravier, C., & Gourru, A. (2022) · doi:10.1145/3487553 · Cited by 107
CValues: Measuring the Values of Chinese Large Language Models from Safety to Responsibility
Xu, G., Liu, J., Yan, M., Xu, H., Si, J., Zhou, Z., Yi, P., Gao, X., Sang, J., Zhang, R., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09705 · Cited by 107
Self-citationTowards a Better Metric for Evaluating Question Generation Systems
Nema, P., & Khapra, M. M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1429 · Cited by 106
A Co-Matching Model for Multi-choice Reading Comprehension
Wang, S., Yu, M., Jiang, J., & Chang, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-2118 · Cited by 106
VisualMRC: Machine Reading Comprehension on Document Images
Tanaka, R., Nishida, K., & Yoshida, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i15.17635 · Cited by 106
A Survey of Knowledge Enhanced Pre-trained Language Models
Yang, J. K., Hu, X., Xiao, G., & Shen, Y. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing · doi:10.1145/3631392 · Cited by 107
Liu, V., & Yin, Y. (2024) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00149-w · Cited by 106
Evaluating Question Answering Evaluation
Chen, A., Stanovsky, G., Singh, S., & Gardner, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5817 · Cited by 105
Learning to Generate Questions by LearningWhat not to Generate
Liu, B., Zhao, M. M., Niu, D., Lai, K., He, Y., Wei, H., & Xu, Y. (2019) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3308558.3313737 · Cited by 105
Answering Complex Open-domain Questions Through Iterative Query Generation
Qi, P., Lin, X., Mehr, L., Wang, Z., & Manning, C. D. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1261 · Cited by 106
Learning Dense Representations of Phrases at Scale
Lee, J., Sung, M., Kang, J., & Chen, D. (2021) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.518 · Cited by 105
Does it Make Sense? And Why? A Pilot Study for Sense Making and Explanation
Wang, C., Liang, S., Zhang, Y., Li, X., & Gao, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1393 · Cited by 104
Answering while Summarizing: Multi-task Learning for Multi-hop QA with Evidence Extraction
Nishida, K., Nishida, K., Nagata, M., Otsuka, A., Saito, I., Asano, H., & Tomita, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1225 · Cited by 105
Applying BERT to Document Retrieval with Birch
Yilmaz, Z. A., Wang, S., Yang, W., Zhang, H., & Lin, J. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-3004 · Cited by 104
DCN+: Mixed Objective and Deep Residual Coattention for Question AnsweringPreprint
Xiong, C., Zhong, V., & Socher, R. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.00106 · Cited by 104
Learning to Encode Position for Transformer with Continuous Dynamical ModelPreprint
Liu, X., Yu, H., Dhillon, I. S., & Hsieh, C. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.09229 · Cited by 104
ReasonIR: Training Retrievers for Reasoning TasksPreprint
Shao, R., Qiao, R., Kishore, V., Muennighoff, N., Lin, X., Rus, D. L., Low, B. K. H., Min, S., Yih, W.-T., Koh, P. W., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20595 · Cited by 104
Multi-Hop Paragraph Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering
Feldman, Y., & El‐Yaniv, R. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1222 · Cited by 103
Multi-Passage Machine Reading Comprehension with Cross-Passage Answer Verification
Wang, Y., Liu, K., Liu, J., He, W. P., Lyu, Y., Wu, H. R., Li, S., & Wang, H. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1178 · Cited by 103
Translation Artifacts in Cross-lingual Transfer Learning
Artetxe, M., Labaka, G., & Agirre, E. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.618 · Cited by 103
doc2dial: A Goal-Oriented Document-Grounded Dialogue Dataset
Feng, S., Wan, H., Gunasekara, C., Patel, S., Joshi, S., & Lastras, L. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.652 · Cited by 103
Vokenization: Improving Language Understanding with Contextualized, Visual-Grounded Supervision
Tan, H. X., & Bansal, M. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.162 · Cited by 103
Su, D., Xu, Y., Yu, T., Siddique, F. B., Barezi, E. J., & Fung, P. (2020) · Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 (NLP-COVID19) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.nlpcovid19-2.14 · Cited by 108
ATTEMPT: Parameter-Efficient Multi-task Tuning via Attentional Mixtures of Soft Prompts
Asai, A., Salehi, M., Peters, M. E., & Hajishirzi, H. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.446 · Cited by 103
A Survey of Cutting-edge Multimodal Sentiment Analysis
Singh, U., Abhishek, K., & Azad, H. K. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3652149 · Cited by 103
Towards Trustworthy Retrieval Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Ni, B., Liu, Z., Lei, Y., Wang, L., Zhao, Y., Cheng, X., Zeng, Q., Dong, L., Xia, Y., Kenthapadi, K., et al. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3837074 · Cited by 108
A Joint Model for Question Answering and Question GenerationPreprint
Wang, T., Yuan, X., & Trischler, A. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.01450 · Cited by 103
Distilling Knowledge from Reader to Retriever for Question Answering
Izacard, G., & Grave, E. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.04584 · Cited by 102
Investigating Meta-Learning Algorithms for Low-Resource Natural Language Understanding Tasks
Dou, Z.-Y., Yu, K., & Anastasopoulos, A. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1112 · Cited by 102
Better Rewards Yield Better Summaries: Learning to Summarise Without References
Böhm, F., Gao, Y., Meyer, C. M., Shapira, O., Dagan, I., & Gurevych, I. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1307 · Cited by 105
FQuAD: French Question Answering Dataset
d’Hoffschmidt, M., Belblidia, W., Heinrich, Q., Brendlé, T., & Vidal, M. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.107 · Cited by 102
Pre-gated MoE: An Algorithm-System Co-Design for Fast and Scalable Mixture-of-Expert Inference
Hwang, R., Wei, J., Cao, S., Hwang, C., Tang, X., Cao, T., & Yang, M. F. (2024) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Computer Architecture/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/isca59077.2024.00078 · Cited by 102
Entity-Based Knowledge Conflicts in Question Answering
Longpre, S., Perisetla, K., Chen, A., Ramesh, N., DuBois, C., & Singh, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.565 · Cited by 101
MCScript: A Novel Dataset for Assessing Machine Comprehension Using Script Knowledge
Ostermann, S., Modi, A., Roth, M., Thater, S., & Pinkal, M. (2018) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/2x36g84ob95p · Cited by 101
Representation Learning for Natural Language Processing
Liu, Z., Lin, Y., & Sun, M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5573-2 · Cited by 103
Identifying Where to Focus in Reading Comprehension for Neural Question Generation
Du, X., & Cardie, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1219 · Cited by 100
Are Red Roses Red? Evaluating Consistency of Question-Answering Models
Ribeiro, M. T., Guestrin, C., & Singh, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1621 · Cited by 100
A Read-Write Memory Network for Movie Story Understanding
Na, S., Lee, S., Kim, J., & Kim, G. (2017) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.80 · Cited by 100
Conversing by Reading: Contentful Neural Conversation with On-demand Machine Reading
Qin, L., Galley, M., Brockett, C., Liu, X., Gao, X., Dolan, B., Choi, Y., & Gao, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1539 · Cited by 100
AntMan: Dynamic Scaling on GPU Clusters for Deep Learning.
Xiao, W., Ren, S., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Hou, P., Li, Z., Feng, Y., Lin, W., & Jia, Y. (2020) · Operating Systems Design and Implementation · Cited by 100
CogLTX: Applying BERT to Long Texts
Ding, M., Zhou, C., Yang, H., & Tang, J. (2020) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 100
Liao, X., Zhang, X., Wang, Z., & Luo, H. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13424 · Cited by 100
Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task
(2019) · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-50 · Cited by 100
Understanding LLMs: A Comprehensive Overview from Training to InferencePreprint
Liu, Y., He, H., Han, T., Zhang, X., Liu, M., Tian, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Gao, X., Zhong, T., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02038 · Cited by 110
Neural Models for Key Phrase Extraction and Question Generation
Subramanian, S., Wang, T., Yuan, X., Zhang, S., Trischler, A., & Bengio, Y. (2018) · Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering (MRQA) · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-2609 · Cited by 100
Contrastive Out-of-Distribution Detection for Pretrained Transformers
Zhou, W., Liu, F., & Chen, M. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.84 · Cited by 99
Are Pretrained Convolutions Better than Pretrained Transformers?
Tay, Y., Dehghani, M., Gupta, J. P., Aribandi, V., Bahri, D., Qin, Z., & Metzler, D. (2021) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.335 · Cited by 99
Hu, K., Gaikwad, S. S., Hulsebos, M., Bakker, M. A., Zgraggen, E., Hidalgo, C. A., Kraska, T., Li, G., Satyanarayan, A., & Demiralp, Ç. (2019) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300892 · Cited by 98
Supervised and Unsupervised Transfer Learning for Question Answering
Chung, Y.-A., Lee, H.-Y., & Glass, J. R. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1143 · Cited by 98
Domain Adaptation with BERT-based Domain Classification and Data Selection
Ma, X., Xu, P., Wang, Z., Nallapati, R. M., & Xiang, B. (2019) · Workshop on Deep Learning Approaches for Low-Resource NLP (DeepLo) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-6109 · Cited by 99
Mr. TyDi: A Multi-lingual Benchmark for Dense Retrieval
Zhang, X., Ma, X., Shi, P., & Lin, J. (2021) · Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning (MRL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.mrl-1.12 · Cited by 98
On Transferability of Prompt Tuning for Natural Language Processing
Su, Y., Wang, X., Qin, Y., Chan, C.-M., Lin, Y., Wang, H., Wen, K., Liu, Z., Li, P., Li, J., et al. (2022) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.290 · Cited by 98
Towards Human-Like Educational Question Generation with Large Language Models
Wang, Z., Valdez, J., Mallick, D. B., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-11644-5_13 · Cited by 98
Let the LLMs Talk: Simulating Human-to-Human Conversational QA via Zero-Shot LLM-to-LLM Interactions
Abbasiantaeb, Z., Yuan, Y., Kanoulas, E., & Aliannejadi, M. (2024) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3616855.3635856 · Cited by 98
Unveiling LLM Evaluation Focused on Metrics: Challenges and SolutionsPreprint
Hu, T., & Zhou, X. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.09135 · Cited by 98
HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering
Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W. W., Salakhutdinov, R., & Manning, C. D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.09600 · Cited by 97
Accelerating Sparse Deep Neural Networks
Mishra, A., Latorre, J. A., Pool, J., Stosic, D., Stosic, D., Venkatesh, G., Yu, C., & Micikevicius, P. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.08378 · Cited by 97
Ranking Paragraphs for Improving Answer Recall in Open-Domain Question Answering
Lee, J., Yun, S., Kim, H., Ko, M., & Kang, J. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1053 · Cited by 97
Yang, L., Zhang, M., Li, C., Bendersky, M., & Najork, M. (2020) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3340531.3411908 · Cited by 97
Robust Encodings: A Framework for Combating Adversarial Typos
Jones, E., Jia, R., Raghunathan, A., & Liang, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.245 · Cited by 97
Self-citationWebSRC: A Dataset for Web-Based Structural Reading Comprehension
Chen, X., Zhao, Z., Chen, L., Ji, J., Zhang, D., Luo, A., Xiong, Y., & Yu, K. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.343 · Cited by 97
TopiOCQA: Open-domain Conversational Question Answering with Topic Switching
Adlakha, V., Dhuliawala, S., Suleman, K., de Vries, H., & Reddy, S. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00471 · Cited by 97
BERT Learns to Teach: Knowledge Distillation with Meta Learning
Zhou, W., Xu, C., & McAuley, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.485 · Cited by 97
LaTr: Layout-Aware Transformer for Scene-Text VQA
Biten, A. F., Litman, R., Xie, Y., Appalaraju, S., & Manmatha, R. (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/cvpr52688.2022.01605 · Cited by 97
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
