PreprintCited by 709Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text

Open access
Rajpurkar, Pranav, Zhang, Jian, Lopyrev, Konstantin, Liang, Percy·2016·arXiv

Abstract

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1606.05250

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Many benchmarks use multiple-choice questions for the sake of simplicity.

    “Many benchmarks use multiple-choice questions for the sake of simplicity (Koto et al. 2024;Rajpurkar et al. 2016).”
  • Two prior studies using a Wikipedia Question Answering Task, which made similar hypotheses, were pre-registered.

    “We previously pre-registered two studies 5 that made similar hypotheses using a popular Wikipedia Question Answering Task [79].”
  • BART matches the performance of RoBERTa on GLUE and SQuAD.

    “It matches the performance of RoBERTa on GLUE and SQuAD”
  • Other metrics such as token-level F1 score, sentence or passage-level AUC, and similarity to ground-truth can account for recall as well as precision but require human responses or judgements that serve as a ground-truth.

    “Other metrics such as token-level F 1 score (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), sentence or passage-level AUC (Manakul et al., 2023), and similarity to ground-truth (Wieting et al., 2022) can account for recall as well as precision but require human responses or judgements that serve as a ground-truth.”

    From Long-form factuality in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as Rajpurkar et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2427527485
Cited by
678
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 162 · 2020: 164 · 2019: 107 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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, text segmentation, dependency trees, constituency trees, logistic regression, human performance comparison

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