The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
QuAC: Question Answering in Context
Open accessAbstract
We present QuAC, a dataset for Question Answering in Context that contains 14K information-seeking QA dialogs (100K questions in total).The dialogs involve two crowd workers: (1) a student who poses a sequence of freeform questions to learn as much as possible about a hidden Wikipedia text, and (2) a teacher who answers the questions by providing short excerpts from the text.QuAC introduces challenges not found in existing machine comprehension datasets: its questions are often more open-ended, unanswerable, or only meaningful within the dialog context, as we show in a detailed qualitative evaluation.We also report results for a number of reference models, including a recently state-ofthe-art reading comprehension architecture extended to model dialog context.Our best model underperforms humans by 20 F1, suggesting that there is significant room for future work on this data.Dataset, baseline, and leaderboard available at http://quac.ai.How was perversion handled?How long was he there?How popular did she become?How did Mark Felt contact Woodword?How did the meeting go?How did it do on the charts?When was she born?When was it founded?When was the breakup?
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?
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 [114]
In the citing paper
“For question answering (QA), on SQuADv2 [97], QuAC [24], and many other datasets, fine-tuned models have superior performance, while on CoQA [98], LLMs perform as well as fine-tuned models [25].”
From Harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [24]
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
Deep Contextualized Word Representations
Peters, M., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1202 · Cited by 11,983 · cited 2×
“BiDAF++ We use a re-implementation of a top-performing SQuAD model (Peters et al., 2018) that augments bidirectional attention flow (Seo et al., 2016, BiDAF) with self-attention (Clark and Gardner, 2018) and contextualized embeddings.”
MethodSelf-citationSQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1264 · Cited by 6,208 · cited 2×
“Reading Comprehension Our work builds on span based reading comprehension (Rajpurkar et al., 2016; Joshi et al., 2017; Trischler et al., 2016), while also incorporating innovations such as curating questions independently of supporting text to reduce trivial lexical overlap (Joshi et al., 2017;…”
BackgroundSelf-citationYago: a core of semantic knowledge
Suchanek, F. M., Kasneci, G., & Weikum, G. (2007) · Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/1242572.1242667 · Cited by 2,512
MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset
Bajaj, P., Campos, D., Craswell, N., Deng, L., Gao, J., Liu, X., Majumder, R., McNamara, A., Mitra, B., Nguyen, T., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.09268 · Cited by 2,473
Know What You Don’t Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuAD
Rajpurkar, P., Jia, R., & Liang, P. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-2124 · Cited by 2,240
Self-citationSupervised Learning of Universal Sentence Representations from Natural Language Inference Data
Conneau, A., Kiela, D., Schwenk, H., Barrault, L., & Bordes, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1070 · Cited by 2,049 · cited 1×
“Pretrained InferSent To test the importance of lexical matching in our dataset, we output the sentence in s whose pretrained InferSent representation (Conneau et al., 2017) has the highest cosine similarity to that of the question.”
MethodBidirectional Attention Flow for Machine ComprehensionPreprint
Seo, M. J., Kembhavi, A., Farhadi, A., & Hajishirzi, H. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01603 · Cited by 1,698 · cited 1×
“BiDAF++ We use a re-implementation of a top-performing SQuAD model (Peters et al., 2018) that augments bidirectional attention flow (Seo et al., 2016, BiDAF) with self-attention (Clark and Gardner, 2018) and contextualized embeddings.”
MethodTriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension
Joshi, M., Choi, E., Weld, D., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1147 · Cited by 1,690 · cited 8×
“adopted in other reading comprehension datasets such as SQuAD, TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017), and NewsQA (Trischler et al.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationDeep Reinforcement Learning for Dialogue Generation
Li, J., Monroe, W., Ritter, A., Jurafsky, D., Galley, M., & Gao, J. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1127 · Cited by 1,393 · cited 1×
“19 Dialog fits into an increasing interest in open domain dialog, mostly studied in the context of social chit-chat (Li et al., 2016; Ritter et al., 2011; Fang et al., 2017; Ghazvininejad et al., 2018).”
BackgroundAllenNLP: A Deep Semantic Natural Language Processing Platform
Gardner, M., Grus, J., Neumann, M., Tafjord, O., Dasigi, P., Liu, N. F., Peters, M. E., Schmitz, M., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Workshop for NLP Open Source Software (NLP-OSS) · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-2501 · Cited by 1,376 · cited 1×
“The AllenNLP (Gardner et al., 2017) implementation we use reaches 82.”
MethodSelf-citationCoQA: A Conversational Question Answering Challenge
Reddy, S., Chen, D., & Manning, C. D. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00266 · Cited by 975 · cited 6×
“CoQA (Reddy et al., 2018) CSQA (Saha et al., 2018) CQA (Talmor and Berant, 2018) SQA (Iyyer et al., 2017) NarrativeQA (Kocisk´y et al., 2017) TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017) SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) MS Marco (Nguyen et al., 2016) NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2016) Table 1: Comparison of the QUAC dataset to other…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Dataset
Trischler, A., Wang, T., Yuan, X., Harris, J., Sordoni, A., Bachman, P., & Suleman, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-2623 · Cited by 706 · cited 6×
“…2017) NarrativeQA (Kocisk´y et al., 2017) TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017) SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) MS Marco (Nguyen et al., 2016) NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2016) Table 1: Comparison of the QUAC dataset to other question answering datasets. tion”), which makes the dialogs more…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challenge
Kočiský, T., Schwarz, J., Blunsom, P., Dyer, C., Hermann, K. M., Melis, G., & Grefenstette, E. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00023 · Cited by 596 · cited 5×
“CoQA (Reddy et al., 2018) CSQA (Saha et al., 2018) CQA (Talmor and Berant, 2018) SQA (Iyyer et al., 2017) NarrativeQA (Kocisk´y et al., 2017) TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017) SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) MS Marco (Nguyen et al., 2016) NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2016) Table 1: Comparison of the QUAC dataset to other…”
BackgroundInfluentialData-Driven Response Generation in Social Media
Ritter, A., Cherry, C. A., & Dolan, W. B. (2011) · Cited by 566
The Web as a Knowledge-Base for Answering Complex Questions
Talmor, A., & Berant, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1059 · Cited by 520 · cited 4×
“CoQA (Reddy et al., 2018) CSQA (Saha et al., 2018) CQA (Talmor and Berant, 2018) SQA (Iyyer et al., 2017) NarrativeQA (Kocisk´y et al., 2017) TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017) SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) MS Marco (Nguyen et al., 2016) NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2016) Table 1: Comparison of the QUAC dataset to other…”
BackgroundInfluentialZero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension
Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/k17-1034 · Cited by 482
Self-citationZero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension
Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.04115 · Cited by 482
Self-citationSimple and Effective Multi-Paragraph Reading Comprehension
Clark, C., & Gardner, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1078 · Cited by 434 · cited 2×
“, 2016, BiDAF) with self-attention (Clark and Gardner, 2018) and contextualized embeddings.”
BackgroundDas, A., Kottur, S., Gupta, K., Singh, A., Jain, D., Moura, J. M. F., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · Cited by 432
Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning of Negotiation Dialogues
Lewis, M., Yarats, D., Dauphin, Y., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1259 · Cited by 347 · cited 2×
“More explicit goal driven scenarios, such as bargaining (Lewis et al., 2017)”
BackgroundExpanding the scope of the ATIS task
Dahl, D. A., Bates, M., Brown, M., Fisher, W. M., Hunicke-Smith, K., Pallett, D. S., Pao, C., Rudnicky, A. I., & Shriberg, E. E. (1994) · DARPA Workshop on Speech and Natural Language (HLT) · doi:10.3115/1075812.1075823 · Cited by 306 · cited 2×
“Such open information seeking was studied in semantic parsing on knowledge bases (Dahl et al., 1994) and more recently with modern approaches (Saha et al.”
BackgroundA Knowledge-Grounded Neural Conversation Model
Ghazvininejad, M., Brockett, C., Chang, M.-W., Dolan, B., Gao, J., Yih, W.-T., & Galley, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11977 · Cited by 262
Self-citationSearch-based Neural Structured Learning for Sequential Question Answering
Iyyer, M., Yih, W.-T., & Chang, M.-W. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1167 · Cited by 213 · cited 4×
“CoQA (Reddy et al., 2018) CSQA (Saha et al., 2018) CQA (Talmor and Berant, 2018) SQA (Iyyer et al., 2017) NarrativeQA (Kocisk´y et al., 2017) TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017) SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) MS Marco (Nguyen et al., 2016) NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2016) Table 1: Comparison of the QUAC dataset to other…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationLearning Symmetric Collaborative Dialogue Agents with Dynamic Knowledge Graph Embeddings
He, H., Balakrishnan, A., Eric, M., & Liang, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1162 · Cited by 192 · cited 2×
“and item guessing (He et al., 2017) have also been explored, but the language is more constrained than in .”
BackgroundSelf-citationSaha, A., Pahuja, V., Khapra, M. M., Sankaranarayanan, K., & Chandar, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11332 · Cited by 185
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 · cited 1×
“Concurrent to our work, Saeidi et al. (2018) proposed a task of generating and answering yes/no questions for rule focused text (such as traffic laws) by interacting with a user through dialog.”
BackgroundInformation-Seeking Chat: Dialogues Driven by Topic-Structure
Stede, M., & Schlangen, D. (2004) · PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) · Cited by 13
Analysis of Wikipedia-based Corpora for Question AnsweringPreprint
Jurczyk, T., Deshmane, A. A., & Choi, J. D. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.02073 · Cited by 6 · cited 2×
“SQuAD, which is unsurprising as most SQuAD answers are either entities or numerics (Jurczyk et al., 2018) while questions can be more open-ended.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Hao Fang, Hao Cheng, Elizabeth Clark, Ariel Holtz- man, Maarten Sap, Mari Ostendorf, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2017. Sounding board-university of washingtons alexa prize submission. Alexa Prize Proceedings.
- Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word rep- resentations. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
- Marzieh Saeidi, Max Bartolo, Patrick Lewis, Sameer Signh, Tim Rocktschel, Mike Sheldon, Guillaume Bouchard, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Interpreta- tion of natural language rules in conversational ma- chine reading. In Proceedings of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., & Crawford, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.09010 · Cited by 2,474
“Academic researchers have adopted our proposal and released datasets with accompanying datasheets [e.g., 7, 10, 23, 26].”
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., III, H. D., & Crawford, K. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3458723 · Cited by 2,469
“Academic researchers have adopted our proposal and released datasets with accompanying datasheets [e.g., 7, 10, 23, 26].”
Natural Questions: A benchmark for question answering research
Kwiatkowski, T., Palomaki, J., Redfield, O., Collins, M., Parikh, A., Alberti, C., Epstein, D., Polosukhin, I., Devlin, J., Lee, K., et al. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00276 · Cited by 2,069
Metadata
- Authors
- Choi, E., He, H., Iyyer, M., Yatskar, M., Yih, W.-T., Choi, Y., Liang, P., & Zettlemoyer, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 2174-2184
- OpenAlex
- W2888302696
- Cited by
- 714
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 115 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 10
- FWCI
- 36.11
- 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)
- Funders
- Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Army Research Office (W911NF-15-1-, W911NF)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- information-seeking questions, open-ended questions, unanswerable questions, reading comprehension
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
