The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs
Open accessAbstract
Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, Matt Gardner. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). 2019.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“our agents improve F1 scores on reading comprehension tasks in DROP (Dua et al., 2019) by 13.6 /100”
From Automated Design of Agentic Systems (2024) · cites this paper as Dua et al., 2019
Citations
Cites
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325 · cited 4×
“For example, BERT, the current state-of-the-art on SQuAD, drops by more than 50 absolute F1 points.”
MethodInfluentialGlove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071 · cited 2×
“We also add context-specific rules to produce strings occurring in both question and paragraph, and those paragraph strings that are neighbors of question tokens in the GloVe embedding space (Pennington et al., 2014), up to a cosine distance of d .”
MethodDeep 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×
“We test four different SQuAD-style reading comprehension models on DROP: (1 (Peters et al., 2018) to the original embeddings (78.7% EM); (4) BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), which recently achieved improvements on many NLP tasks with a novel pre-training technique (84.7% EM).”
MethodInfluentialSelf-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 1×
“Question answering datasets: With systems reaching human performance on the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD) (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), many follow-on tasks are currently being proposed.”
MethodA large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference
Bowman, S. R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 · Cited by 3,377 · cited 3×
“…et al., 2018; Kaushik and Lipton, 2018) has identified that popular synthetic NLP datasets (such as SQuAD (Ra-jpurkar et al., 2016) or SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015)) are prone to have artifacts and annotation biases which can be exploited by supervised algorithms that learn to pick up these…”
BackgroundInfluentialKnow 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 · cited 2×
“, 2018; Talmor and Berant, 2018), mismatched passages and questions (Saha et al., 2018; Kociský et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2018), integrating knowledge from external sources (Mihaylov et al.”
BackgroundHotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering
Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W., Salakhutdinov, R., & Manning, C. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1259 · Cited by 1,804 · cited 2×
“…challenge, around tracking conversational state (Reddy et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2018), requiring passage retrieval (Joshi et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018), mis-matched passages and questions (Saha et al., 2018; Kocisk´y et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2018), integrating knowledge from…”
BackgroundBidirectional 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 3×
“…instructions given to workers, and partially through the use of an adversarial baseline : we ran a base-line reading comprehension method (BiDAF) (Seo et al., 2016) in the background as crowd workers were writing questions, requiring them to give questions that the baseline system could not…”
MethodInfluentialTriviaQA: 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 2×
“…to the reading comprehension challenge, around tracking conversational state (Reddy et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2018), requiring passage retrieval (Joshi et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018), mis-matched passages and questions (Saha et al., 2018; Kocisk´y et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2018),…”
BackgroundCan a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering
Mihaylov, T., Clark, P. E., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1260 · Cited by 1,602 · cited 1×
“, 2018), integrating knowledge from external sources (Mihaylov et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019), tracking entity state changes (Mishra et al.”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning
Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., & Constant, N. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.08691 · Cited by 3,092
“Of the datasets where model tuning is better, we see that DROP shares a domain (Wikipedia) with SQuAD and is thus one of the smallest domain transfers.”
BackgroundThe Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning
Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., & Constant, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.243 · Cited by 3,096
“Of the datasets where model tuning is better, we see that DROP shares a domain (Wikipedia) with SQuAD and is thus one of the smallest domain transfers.”
BackgroundPaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
“…Common Sense Reasoning: PIQA (Bisk et al., 2019), ARC (Clark et al., 2018), OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018) • In-context Reading Comprehension: DROP (Dua et al., 2019), CoQA (Reddy et al., 2018), QuAC (Choi et al., 2018), SQuADv2 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), RACE (Lai et al., 2017) •…”
BackgroundFinetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners
Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V. Y., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.01652 · Cited by 1,101
“0 -20 20 40 60 Percent of Data Clean in Dataset Percent change in performance of FLAN (accuracy, F1, or BLEU) eval on only clean data did better eval on all data (including dirty) did better ANLI R2 SQuAD v2 ANLI R1 DROP ReCoRD PIQA 25 500 75 100 Figure 9: Like GPT-3, we also measured performance on cleaned versions o…”
BackgroundInfluentialClimbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data
Bender, E. M., & Koller, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463 · Cited by 1,082
“For example, the DROP reading comprehension benchmark (Dua et al., 2019) seeks to create more stringent tests of understanding by creating questions that require the system to integrate information from different parts of a paragraph via simple arithmetic or similar operations.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Dua, D., Wang, Y., Dasigi, P., Stanovsky, G., Singh, S., & Gardner, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 2368-2378
- OpenAlex
- W2919420119
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 113 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 32
- FWCI
- 27.26
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- reading comprehension, benchmark, question answering
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