PreprintCited by 238Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs

Open access
Dua, Dheeru, Wang, Yizhong, Dasigi, Pradeep, Stanovsky, Gabriel, Singh, Sameer, Gardner, Matt·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Reading comprehension has recently seen rapid progress, with systems matching humans on the most popular datasets for the task. However, a large body of work has highlighted the brittleness of these systems, showing that there is much work left to be done. We introduce a new English reading comprehension benchmark, DROP, which requires Discrete Reasoning Over the content of Paragraphs. In this crowdsourced, adversarially-created, 96k-question benchmark, a system must resolve references in a question, perhaps to multiple input positions, and perform discrete operations over them (such as addition, counting, or sorting). These operations require a much more comprehensive understanding of the content of paragraphs than what was necessary for prior datasets. We apply state-of-the-art methods from both the reading comprehension and semantic parsing literature on this dataset and show that the best systems only achieve 32.7% F1 on our generalized accuracy metric, while expert human performance is 96.0%. We additionally present a new model that combines reading comprehension methods with simple numerical reasoning to achieve 47.0% F1.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1903.00161

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • During RLHF fine-tuning, performance regressions compared to GPT-3 are observed on certain public NLP datasets, notably SQuAD, DROP, HellaSwag, and WMT 2015 French to English translation.

    “During RLHF fine-tuning, we observe performance regressions compared to GPT-3 on certain public NLP datasets, notably SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), DROP (Dua et al., 2019), HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), and WMT 2015 French to English translation (Bojar et al., 2015).”

    From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Dua et al., 2019

  • Gödel Agent was evaluated on language understanding and mathematical benchmarks rather than coding benchmarks.

    “And as such, as with ADAS, it was evaluated on language understanding and mathematical benchmarks (DROP Dua et al., 2019, MGSM Shi et al., 2022, MMLU Hendrycks et al., 2020and GPQA Rein et al., 2023), rather than coding benchmarks.”

    From A Self-Improving Coding Agent (2025) · cites this paper as Dua et al., 2019

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Michele Banko, Michael J. Cafarella, Stephen Soderland, Matthew G Broadhead, and Oren Etzioni. 2007. Open information extraction from the web. In IJCAI .
  2. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013a. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP .
  3. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013b. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1533-1544.
  4. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP .
  5. Xavier Carreras and Llu´ ıs M` arquez. 2005. Introduction to the conll-2005 shared task: Semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of CONLL , pages 152-164.
  6. David L Chen and Raymond J Mooney. 2011. Learning to interpret natural language navigation instructions from observations. In AAAI , volume 2, pages 1-2.
  7. Christopher Clark and Matt Gardner. 2018. Simple and effective multi-paragraph reading comprehension. In ACL .
  8. Peter Clark, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Turney, and Daniel Khashabi. 2016. Combining retrieval, statistics, and inference to answer elementary science questions. In Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence .
  9. Matt Gardner, Joel Grus, Mark Neumann, Oyvind Tafjord, Pradeep Dasigi, Nelson F. Liu, Matthew Peters, Michael Schmitz, and Luke S. Zettlemoyer. 2017. Allennlp: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. In Proceedings of Workshop for NLP Open Source Software (NLP-OSS) . Association for Computational Linguistics.
  10. Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A. Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proc. of NAACL .
  11. Luheng He, Kenton Lee, Mike Lewis, and Luke S. Zettlemoyer. 2017. Deep semantic role labeling: What works and what's next. In ACL .
  12. Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Oren Etzioni, and Nate Kushman. 2014. Learning to solve arithmetic word problems with verb categorization. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 523-533.
  13. Divyansh Kaushik and Zachary Chase Lipton. 2018. How much reading does reading comprehension require? a critical investigation of popular benchmarks. In EMNLP .
  14. Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ashish Sabharwal, Oren Etzioni, and Siena Dumas Ang. 2015. Parsing algebraic word problems into equations. TACL , 3:585-597.
  15. Jayant Krishnamurthy, Pradeep Dasigi, and Matt Gardner. 2017. Neural semantic parsing with type constraints for semi-structured tables. In EMNLP .
  16. Nate Kushman, Yoav Artzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Regina Barzilay. 2014. Learning to automatically solve algebra word problems. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , volume 1, pages 271-281.
  17. Chen Liang, Jonathan Berant, Quoc Le, Kenneth D. Forbus, and Ni Lao. 2017. Neural symbolic machines: Learning semantic parsers on freebase with weak supervision. In ACL .
  18. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Christopher D. Manning. 2008. The stanford typed dependencies representation. In CFCFPE@COLING .
  19. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In EMNLP .
  20. Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Lifu Huang, Niket Tandon, Wen-tau Yih, and Peter Clark. 2018. Tracking state changes in procedural text: A challenge dataset and models for process paragraph comprehension.
  21. Arvind Neelakantan, Quoc V. Le, and Ilya Sutskever. 2016. Neural programmer: Inducing latent programs with gradient descent. ICLR .
  22. Simon Ostermann, Ashutosh Modi, Michael Roth, Stefan Thater, and Manfred Pinkal. 2018. Mcscript: a novel dataset for assessing machine comprehension using script knowledge. LREC Proceedings, 2018 .
  23. Denis Paperno, Germ´ an Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazaridou, Quan Ngoc Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, and Raquel Fern´ andez. 2016. The lambada dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context. ACL .
  24. Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. 2015. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. In ACL .
  25. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In EMNLP .
  26. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. In ACL .
  27. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100, 000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In EMNLP .
  28. Siva Reddy, Danqi Chen, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. Coqa: A conversational question answering challenge. TACL .
  29. Scott E. Reed and Nando de Freitas. 2016. Neural programmer-interpreters. ICLR .
  30. Amrita Saha, Rahul Aralikatte, Mitesh M. Khapra, and Karthik Sankaranarayanan. 2018. Duorc: Towards complex language understanding with paraphrased reading comprehension. In ACL .
  31. Min Joon Seo, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Bidirectional attention flow for machine comprehension. ICLR .
  32. Gabriel Stanovsky, Julian Michael, Luke S. Zettlemoyer, and Ido Dagan. 2018. Supervised open information extraction. In NAACL-HLT .
  33. Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Constructing datasets for multi-hop reading comprehension across documents. TACL , 6:287-302.
  34. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In EMNLP .
  35. Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2017. A syntactic neural model for general-purpose code generation. In ACL'17 .
  36. Adams Wei Yu, David Dohan, Minh-Thang Luong, Rui Zhao, Kai Chen, Mohammad Norouzi, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Qanet: Combining local convolution with global self-attention for reading comprehension. ICLR .
  37. John M. Zelle and Raymond J. Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2 .
  38. Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. From recognition to cognition: Visual commonsense reasoning. CVPR , abs/1811.10830. · arXiv
  39. Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Swag: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In EMNLP .
  40. Luke S. Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2005. Learning to map sentences to logical form: Structured classification with probabilistic categorial grammars. In UAI .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dua, D., Wang, Y., Dasigi, P., Stanovsky, G., Singh, S., & Gardner, M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951365061
Cited by
238
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 17
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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
numerical reasoning, reference resolution, semantic parsing, model brittleness

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