SearchQA: A New Q&A Dataset Augmented with Context from a Search Engine
Open accessAbstract
We publicly release a new large-scale dataset, called SearchQA, for machine comprehension, or question-answering. Unlike recently released datasets, such as DeepMind CNN/DailyMail and SQuAD, the proposed SearchQA was constructed to reflect a full pipeline of general question-answering. That is, we start not from an existing article and generate a question-answer pair, but start from an existing question-answer pair, crawled from J! Archive, and augment it with text snippets retrieved by Google. Following this approach, we built SearchQA, which consists of more than 140k question-answer pairs with each pair having 49.6 snippets on average. Each question-answer-context tuple of the SearchQA comes with additional meta-data such as the snippet's URL, which we believe will be valuable resources for future research. We conduct human evaluation as well as test two baseline methods, one simple word selection and the other deep learning based, on the SearchQA. We show that there is a meaningful gap between the human and machine performances. This suggests that the proposed dataset could well serve as a benchmark for question-answering.
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
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?
Some tasks have clear ground truth answers and can be scored with exact correctness, while others are open-ended (dialogue, summarization, preference following) where multiple outputs are acceptable and reference-based scoring is not reliable.
“Some tasks have clear ground truth answers and can be scored with exact correctness (Du et al., 2024; Dunn et al., 2017), while others are open-ended (dialogue (Budzianowski et al., 2018), summarization (Maharana et al., 2024), preference following (Zhao et al., 2025c)) where multiple outputs are acceptable and reference-based scoring is not reliable.”
From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Dunn et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946 · see citing works
SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.05250 · Cited by 678 · see citing works
Large-scale Simple Question Answering with Memory Networks
Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Chopra, S., & Weston, J. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.02075 · Cited by 528 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Ben- gio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 . · arXiv
- Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gul- cehre, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2014).
- Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Su- leyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching ma- chines to read and comprehend. In Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems. pages 1693- 1701.
- Felix Hill, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. The goldilocks principle: Reading children's books with explicit memory representa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.02301 . · arXiv
- Rudolf Kadlec, Martin Schmid, Ondrej Bajgar, and Jan Kleindienst. 2016. Text understanding with the attention sum reader network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01547 . · arXiv
- Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hin- ton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep con- volutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems. pages 1097-1105.
- Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09268 . 3 http://pytorch.org/ · arXiv
- Takeshi Onishi, Hai Wang, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gim- pel, and David McAllester. 2016. Who did what: A large-scale person-centered cloze dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.05457 . · arXiv
- Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey E Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Re- search 15(1):1929-1958.
- Adam Trischler, Tong Wang, Xingdi Yuan, Justin Har- ris, Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, and Ka- heer Suleman. 2016. NewsQA: A machine compre- hension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09830 . · arXiv
- Oriol Vinyals, Meire Fortunato, and Navdeep Jaitly. 2015. Pointer networks. In Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems. pages 2692-2700.
- Wayne Xiong, Jasha Droppo, Xuedong Huang, Frank Seide, Mike Seltzer, Andreas Stolcke, Dong Yu, and Geoffrey Zweig. 2016. Achieving human parity in conversational speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05256 . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SpanBERT: Improving Pre-training by Representing and Predicting Spans
Joshi, M., Chen, D., Liu, Y., Weld, D. S., Zettlemoyer, L., & Levy, O. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00300 · Cited by 1,827 · see citing works
TriviaQA: 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 · see citing works
CoQA: 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 · see citing works
Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering
Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1612 · Cited by 771 · see citing works
CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation
Keskar, N. S., McCann, B., Varshney, L. R., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.05858 · Cited by 751 · see citing works
The 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 · see citing works
“SearchQA (Dunn et al., 2017) is a recent dataset in which the context for each question is a set of documents retrieved by a search engine using the question as the query.”
BackgroundNogueira, R., & Cho, K. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.04085 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
Self-citationELI5: long form question answering
Fan, A., Jernite, Y., Perez, E., Grangier, D., Weston, J., & Auli, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1346 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
MetaICL: Learning to Learn In Context
Min, S., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Hajishirzi, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.201 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Rethinking search: making domain experts out of dilettantes
Metzler, D., Tay, Y., Bahri, D., & Najork, M. (2021) · ACM SIGIR Forum · doi:10.1145/3476415.3476428 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
The Effect of Natural Distribution Shift on Question Answering Models
Miller, J., Krauth, K., Recht, B., & Schmidt, L. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.14444 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Task-aware Retrieval with Instructions
Asai, A., Schick, T., Lewis, P., Chen, X., Izacard, G., Riedel, S., Hajishirzi, H., & Yih, W.-T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.225 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Read before Generate! Faithful Long Form Question Answering with Machine Reading
Su, D., Li, X., Zhang, J., Shang, L., Jiang, X., Liu, Q., & Fung, P. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.61 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
MixQG: Neural Question Generation with Mixed Answer Types
Murakhovs’ka, L., Wu, C.-S., Laban, P., Niu, T., Liu, W., & Xiong, C. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.111 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
SkillOpt: Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills
Yang, Y., Gong, Z., Huang, W., Yang, Q., Zhou, Z., Huang, Z., Li, Y., Gao, X., Dai, Q., Liu, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23904 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents
Huang, W.-C., Zhang, W., Liang, Y., Bei, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, T., Pan, X., Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Wei, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06052
Mind the Gap: Assessing Temporal Generalization in Neural Language Models
Lazaridou, A., Kuncoro, A., Gribovskaya, E., Agrawal, D., Liska, A., Terzi, T., Gimenez, M., d'Autume, C. D. M., Kocisky, T., Ruder, S., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.01951 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dunn, M., Sagun, L., Higgins, M., Guney, V. U., Cirik, V., & Cho, K.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2017
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1704.05179
- OpenAlex
- W2609826708
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Nvidia
- York University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- question answering, machine reading comprehension, question-answer pairs, search engine snippets, Google search results, dataset construction, benchmark dataset
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
