A Qualitative Comparison of CoQA, SQuAD 2.0 and QuAC

A Qualitative Comparison of CoQA, SQuAD 2.0 and QuAC

Mark Yatskar
Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence

In this work, we compare three datasets which build on the paradigm defined in SQuAD for question answering: SQuAD 2.0, QuAC, and CoQA. We compare these three datasets along several of their new features: (1) unanswerable questions, (2) multi-turn interactions, and (3) abstractive answers. We show that the datasets provide complementary coverage of the first two aspects, but weak coverage of the third. Because of the datasets’ structural similarity, a single extractive model can be easily adapted to any of the datasets. We show that this model can improve baseline results on both SQuAD 2.0  and CoQA. Despite the core similarity between the datasets, models trained on one dataset are ineffective on another dataset, but we do find moderate performance improvement through pretraining. To encourage evaluation of methods on all of these datasets, we release code for conversion between them.


noitemsep,topsep=5pt,parsep=5pt,partopsep=5pt \mdfdefinestyledialogue backgroundcolor=yellow!20, innermargin=5pt \aclfinalcopy

Dataset Entity Salad False Premise Topic Error Missing Information Content Negation Answerable Questions Total Questions
CoQA 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 40.0 5 (0.5%)
SQuAD 2.0 21.3 21.3 13.5 16.1 16.1 10.9 230 (50.1%)
QuAC 5.5 0.0 16.4 71.2 0.0 6.8 73 (20.2%)
Table 1: Comparison of unanswerable questions on 50 random contexts from the development set of each dataset. SQuAD 2.0 contains a diverse set of circumstances that make questions unanswerable, QuAC focuses on information that could plausibly be in context material and CoQA does not significantly cover unanswerable questions.

1 Introduction

Question answering on textual data has served as a challenge problem for the NLP community Voorhees (2001); Richardson et al. (2013). With the development of large scale benchmarks and sufficiently simple evaluations  Trischler et al. (2016); Nguyen et al. (2016); Hermann et al. (2015) progress has been rapid. In recent evaluation on a popular question-answering dataset, SQuAD  Rajpurkar et al. (2016), performance exceeded that of annotators  Wang et al. (2018); Hu et al. (2017); Wang et al. (2017).

In response to this development, there have been a flurry of new datasets trying to remove simplifications in SQuAD. In this work, we analyze three such new proposed datasets, SQuAD 2.0 Rajpurkar et al. (2018), QuAC Choi et al. (2018), and CoQA Reddy et al. (2018).111A review of other new datasets is in the related work. In each of these datasets, crowd workers are asked to (1) produce questions about a paragraph of text (context) and (2) produce a reply by either indicating there is no answer, or providing an extractive answer from the context by highlighting one contiguous span. QuAC and CoQA contain two other features: questions are asked in the form of a dialog, where co-reference to previous interactions is possible and directly answering yes/no is possible. CoQA also uniquely allows workers to edit the spans to anything they like to provide abstractive answers 222Also, SQuAD 2.0 and QuAC  cover only Wikipedia text, CoQA  covers six other domains and QuAC is the only one of these datasets that doesn’t allow the questioner to see the context before formulating a question.

We compare these three datasets along several of their new features: (1) unanswerable questions, (2) multi-turn interactions, and (3) abstractive answers. The coverage of unasnwerable questions is complementary among datasets; SQuAD 2.0  covers all types of unanswerable questions present in other datasets, but focuses more on questions of extreme confusion, such as false premise questions, while QuAC primarily focuses on missing information. QuAC and CoQA  dialogs simulate different types of user behavior: QuAC dialogs often switch topics while CoQA dialogs include more queries for details and cover twice as many sentences in the context as QuAC dialogs. Unfortunately, no dataset provides significant coverage of abstractive answers beyond yes/no answers, and we show that a method can achieve an extractive answer upper bound of 100 and 97.8 F1 on QuAC  and CoQA , respectively.

Motivated by the above analysis, the same model can be applied to any of these three datasets. We apply the baseline presented in QuAC Choi et al. (2018), BiDAF++, a model based on BiDAF Seo et al. (2016), augmented with self attention Clark and Gardner (2018). The model also uses ELMo contextualized embeddings Peters et al. (2018), and is available through AllenNLP Gardner et al. (2017). Our experiments show that this extractive baseline outperforms existing extractive and abstractive baselines on CoQA by 14.2 and 2.7 F1 respectively, and can improve on a different implementation of the same baseline model on SQuAD 2.0  by 2.9 F1. Finally, we consider whether models can transfer from one to setting to another. By pretraining we are able to improve 2.7, 1.2 and 1.6 F1 on QuAC, CoQA, SQuAD 2.0, respectively, suggesting models can tap into the similarity between the datasets. 333To facilitate easy future cross-evaluation, we release tools for conversion between these dataset.

Dataset Topic Shift Drill Down Return to Topic Clarification Question Definition Question Sentence Coverage Total Questions
CoQA 21.6 72.0 2.9 0.0 0.7 63.3 722
QuAC 35.4 55.3 5.6 0.7 3.0 28.4 302
Table 2: Comparison of dialog features in 50 random contexts from the development set of each dataset. CoQA  contains questions that drill into details about topics and cover 60% of sentences in the context while in QuAC  dialog switch topic more often and cover less than 30% of sentences. Neither dataset has a significant number of returns to previous topics, clarifications, or definitional interactions.
Dataset Yes/No Coref Counting Picking Fluency Max F1
CoQA 21.4 3.2 1.3 0.6 4.2 97.8
QuAC 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Table 3: Comparison of abstractive features in 50 random contexts in the develoment set of each dataset. Both QuAC and CoQA contain yes/no questions while CoQA also contains answers that improve fluency through abstractive behavior. The extractive upper bound from CoQA is high because most absractivive answers involve adding a pronoun (Coref) or inserting prepositions and changing word forms (Fluency) to existing extractive answers, resulting in extremely high overlap with possible extractive answers.

2 Dataset Analysis

In this section we analyze unanswerable questions, dialog features, abstractive answers in SQuAD 2.0, QuAC, and CoQA. All analysis was performed by the author, on a random sample of 50 contexts from the development set of each dataset. Because the datasets contain radically different numbers of questions per context, we annotated between 300 and 700 questions per dataset.

2.1 Unanswerable Questions

In Table 1 we compare types of unanswerable questions across dataset. We identify five types of questions found between the datasets:

  • Entity Salad: a nonsensical reference to entities found in the context or made-up entities (e.g. “What infinite hierarchy implies that the graph isomorphism problem s NQ-complete?”). Such questions are unanswerable for any context.

  • False Premise: a fact that contradicts something stated in the context is asserted in the question (e.g. “When is the correlation occasionally positive?” but the context says “there is a strictly negative correlation”).

  • Topic Error: a questions that references an entity in the context but the context does not focus on that entity (e.g “How many earthquakes occur in California?” when the article focus is actually about “Southern California” ). Such questions potentially have an answer, but it would be unlikely for the answer to be found in the particular context.

  • Missing Information: a question who’s answer could be plausibly in be in the context but for some reason is not (e.g. “What is the record high in January?” and the article is about temperature extremes). Such questions have an answer but it is not mentioned.

  • Content Negation: a question which asks for the opposite information of something mentioned in the context (e.g. “Who didn’t cause the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire?”). Such questions either have answers that are the set of all entities other than the one mentioned in the context or answers that could be found in some other context.

SQuAD 2.0 contains the highest diversity of unanswerable questions of all datasets analyzed. Some SQuAD 2.0 questions are unlikely to be asked without significant foreknowledge of the context material, such as content negation and false premise, and do not occur in QuAC. Such questions resemble text from entailment datasets such as SNLI Bowman et al. (2015) and seem more likely to arise if questioners are receiving very complex information and become confused.

Topic error and missing information questions are in both SQuAD 2.0 and QuAC. Such questions likely arise in QuAC because the focus of the article may not be immediately obvious in early interactions. Both SQuAD 2.0  and QuAC  cover a significant number of unanswerable questions that could be plausibly in the article. The difference in settings and distributions of unanswerable questions in SQuAD 2.0  and QuAC  appear to be complementary: SQuAD 2.0  focuses more on questions simulating questioner confusion, while QuAC  primarily focuses on missing information. Finally, CoQA  does not contain a significant number of unanswerable questions, and many of the ones that do exist are erroneously marked.

Child. Liter. Mid-High. News Wiki Overall
DrQA (Extractive) 52.4 52.6 51.4 56.8 60.3 54.7
DrQA + PGNet (Abstractive) 64.5 62.0 63.8 68.0 72.6 66.2
BiDAF++ w/ 0-ctx 62.5 61.2 61.9 65.4 65.9 63.4
BiDAF++ w/ 1-ctx 67.4 66.1 66.4 70.7 72.3 68.6
BiDAF++ w/ 2-ctx 67.8 66.7 65.5 71.4 72.1 68.7
BiDAF++ w/ 3-ctx 67.3 66.7 67.6 70.7 73.3 69.2
BiDAF++ w/ 4-ctx 67.2 66.9 65.8 71.8 72.8 68.9
Table 4: Development set performance by training BiDAF++ Choi et al. (2018) models (extractive) on CoQA data with handling yes/no and no-answer questions as in QuAC. Despite being extractive, these models significantly outperform reported baselines, DrQA and DrQA + PGNet  Reddy et al. (2018).
in-F1 out-F1 F1
DrQA 54.5 47.9 52.6
DrQA + PGNet 67.0 60.4 65.1
BiDAF++ w/ 3-ctx 69.4 63.8 67.8
Table 5: Test set results on CoQA. We report in domain F1 (in-F1), out of domain F1 on two held out domains, Reddit and Science (out-F1) and the overall F1 (F1).

2.2 Dialog Features

In Table 2 we analyze five types of dialog behavior in  QuAC and CoQA:

  • Topic Shift: a question about something previously discussed (e.g. “Q: How does he try to take over? … Q: Where do they live?”).

  • Drill Down: a request for more information about a topic being discussed (e.g. “A: The Sherpas call Mount Everest Chomolungma. Q: Is Mt. Everest a holy site for them?”)

  • Topic Return: Asking about a topic again after it had previously been shifted away from.

  • Clarification: Reformulating a question that had previously been asked.

  • Definition: Asking what is meant by a term (e.g. “What are polygenes?”)

QuAC and CoQA  contain many similar features but at very different rates, offering complementary coverage of types of user behavior. CoQA  dialogs drill down for details significantly more frequently and cover more than 60% of sentences in the context material (Sentence Coverage). On the other hand, QuAC dialogs shift to new topics frequently and cover less than 30% of sentences in the context. Both datasets contain only a small numbers of definition questions and returns to previous topics and essentially no requests for clarification. These are areas of potential future work.

2.3 Abstractive Answers

Table 3 compares abstractive behavior in CoQA and QuAC. We observed five phenomena:

  • Yes/No: Questions annotated with yes/no. In QuAC such questions and their corresponding yes or no are marked in addition to an extractive answer. In CoQA, the single token “yes” or “no” is simply asserted as the abstractive answer, with an extractive answer provided in the rationale (e.g. “Q: Is atmosphere one of them? A: yes”).

  • Coref: Coreference is added to previously mentioned entities in either context or question (e.g. “Q: How was France’s economy in the late 2000s? A: it entered the recession”).

  • Count: Counting how many entities of some type were mentioned (e.g. “Q: how many specific genetic traits are named? A: five”)

  • Picking: A question that requires the answer to pick from a set defined in the question (e.g. “Q: Is this a boy or a girl? A: boy)

  • Fluency: Either adding a preposition, changing the form of a word, or merging two non-contiguous spans (e.g. “Q: how did he get away? A: by foot)

Both QuAC and CoQA have a similar rate of yes/no questions. QuAC contains no other abstractive phenomena while CoQA contains a small number of predominately insertions, often at the beginning of an extractive span, for coreference and or other fluency improvements. Because abstractive behavior in CoQA  includes mostly small modifications to spans occurring in the context, the maximum achievable performance by a model that predicts spans from the context is 97.8 F1. 444To compute the upper bound, if abstractive answer is exactly “yes”, “no”, or “unknown”, we consider the upper bound to be 100. Otherwise, we use the CoQA evaluation script to find a span in the context that has maximum F1 with respect to the abstractive answer.

3 New Extractive Baseline for CoQA

Our analysis strongly implies that beyond yes/no questions, abstractive behavior is not a significant component in either QuAC  or CoQA. As such, QuAC models can be trivially adapted to CoQA.

We train a set of BiDAF++ baselines from the original QuAC  dataset release Choi et al. (2018) by optimizing the model to predict the span with maximum F1 overlap with respect to annotated abstractive answers.555We use the implementation on http://allennlp.org, and do not modify any hyper-parameters except the the maximum dialog length and that models were allowed to train up to 65 epochs. If the abstractive answer is exactly “yes” or “no”, we train the model to output the whole rationale span, and classify the question as yes/no with the appropriate answer. At evaluation time, if the model predicts a question is a yes/no question, instead of returning the extracted span, we simply return “yes” or “no”.

Table 4 and Table 5 summarize our results for training BiDAF++ with varying contexts on CoQA. Beyond the difference of underlying base question-answer models (DrQA Chen et al. (2017) vs. BiDAF Seo et al. (2016) with self attention Clark and Gardner (2018)), BiDAF++ has two core differences with respect to DRQA+PGNet: (1) instead of appending previous questions and answers to input question tokens, BiDAF++ marks answers of previous questions directly on the context, and (2) BiDAF++ uses contextualized word embeddings through ELMo Peters et al. (2018). These differences, in combination with appropriate handling of yes/no and unanswerable questions significantly improves on the existing extractive baseline (+14.2 F1) and even on the existing abstractive baseline (+2.7 F1).

4 Cross-Dataset Experiments

In this section we consider whether models can benefit from transfer between SQuAD 2.0, QuAC, and CoQA, and show that the datasets, while ineffective for direct transfer, can be used as pretraining. In all experiments, we use BiDAF++, either with two context or no context, depending on if we are training for dialog settings or not, with default configurations. Models are trained by initializing from other models trained on different datasets and we do not decrease initial learning rates from just training directly on the target dataset. When SQuAD 2.0 is used to initialize models that use context, we randomly order questions in SQuAD 2.0  and train as if questions were asked in the form of a dialog. 666Likely a better strategy exists, but we would like to demonstrate transfer in the simplest possible way. We only report development numbers as this manuscript is a work in progress.

BiDAF++ w/ 2-ctx 60.6 55.7 4.0
Train SQuAD 2.0 34.3 18.0 0.3
Train CoQA 31.2 19.2 0.0
Ft from SQuAD 2.0 62.8 58.4 6.0
Ft from CoQA 63.3 59.2 5.3
Table 6: Cross dataset transfer to QuAC development set. Models do not transfer directly (rows 3 and 4), but after fine tuning improve performance (rows 5 and 6).

Transfer to QuAC

Table 6 summarizes the results. Models trained on either SQuAD 2.0  or CoQA, evaluated directly on QuAC  do not perform well, while initializing from those models significantly improves the quality of a QuAC  model (+2.7 F1).

In Domain F1
DrQA + PGNet 66.2
BiDAF++ w/ 2-ctx 68.7
SQuAD 2.0 41.4
QuAC 29.1
Ft from SQuAD 2.0 69.9
Ft from QuAC 68.9
Table 7: Cross dataset transfer to CoQA development set. Models do not transfer directly (rows 3 and 4), but after fine tuning improve performance (rows 5 and 6). For an explanation of why BiDAF++ outperforms DrQA + PGNet, see Section 3.

Transfer to CoQA

Table 7 summarizes the results. Models initially trained on either SQuAD 2.0 or QuAC are ineffective initially, although the SQuAD 2.0  model performs surprisingly well. When tuning from QuAC we observe no gains, while SQuAD 2.0 improves CoQA  performance moderately (+1.2 F1).

Baseline 67.6 65.1
BiDAF++ 70.5 67.4
CoQA 38.1 32.4
QuAC 25.4 16.8
Ft from CoQA 72.1 69.2
Ft from QuAC 69.6 66.9
Table 8: Cross dataset transfer to SQuAD 2.0 development set. BiDAF++ Choi et al. (2018) outperforms the baseline, a different implementation of the same model Rajpurkar et al. (2018) likely because of better hyper parameter tuning.

Transfer to SQuAD 2.0

Table 8 summarizes the results. BiDAF++ works significantly better than the baseline, although they are different implementations of the same model. Models are again ineffective initially, although the initial CoQA model transfers significantly better than the initial QuAC model. While the QuAC initialized model fails to improve, the CoQA model is able to get significant improvement (+1.6 F1).


Across all of the datasets, there exists at least one other dataset that significantly improves performance on a target dataset. These experiments do not support that direct transfer is possible, but that pretraining is at least somewhat effective. QuAC  appears to transfer the least to any of other datasets, likely because questioners were not allowed to see underlying context documents while formulating questions. Since transfer is effective between these related tasks, we recommend that future work indicate any pretraining.

5 Related Work

Other proposals exist other than the three we analyzed that expand on features in SQuAD Rajpurkar et al. (2016). For example, maintaining question independence of context to reduce the role of string matching and having long context length Joshi et al. (2017); Kociský et al. (2017), higher level reasoning  Khashabi et al. (2018); Clark et al. (2018); Yang et al. (2018), multi-turn information seeking interactions, in either table settings Iyyer et al. (2017); Talmor and Berant (2018); Saha et al. (2018), regulation settings Saeidi et al. (2018), or Quiz Bowl settings Elgohary et al. (2018). Other work considers multi-modal contexts where interactions are a single turn  Tapaswi et al. (2016); Antol et al. (2015); Lei et al. (2018) or multi-turn Das et al. (2017); Pasunuru and Bansal (2018). These efforts contain alternative challenges than ones we analyze in this paper.


  • Antol et al. (2015) Stanislaw Antol, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Margaret Mitchell, Dhruv Batra, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. Vqa: Visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2425–2433.
  • Bowman et al. (2015) Samuel R Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.05326.
  • Chen et al. (2017) Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading Wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
  • Choi et al. (2018) Eunsol Choi, He He, Mohit Iyyer, Mark Yatskar, Wen tau Yih, Yejin Choi, Percy Liang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Quac: Question answering in context. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  • Clark and Gardner (2018) Christopher Clark and Matt Gardner. 2018. Simple and effective multi-paragraph reading comprehension. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Clark et al. (2018) Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457.
  • Das et al. (2017) Abhishek Das, Satwik Kottur, Khushi Gupta, Avi Singh, Deshraj Yadav, José MF Moura, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Visual dialog. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
  • Elgohary et al. (2018) Ahmed Elgohary, Chen Zhao, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2018. A dataset and baselines for sequential open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  • Gardner et al. (2017) 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.
  • Hermann et al. (2015) Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1693–1701.
  • Hu et al. (2017) Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, Zhen Huang, Xipeng Qiu, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Reinforced mnemonic reader for machine reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02798.
  • Iyyer et al. (2017) Mohit Iyyer, Wen tau Yih, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2017. Search-based neural structured learning for sequential question answering. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Joshi et al. (2017) Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S. Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Khashabi et al. (2018) Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking beyond the surface:a challenge set for reading comprehension over multiple sentences. In Proceedings of North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL).
  • Kociský et al. (2017) Tomás Kociský, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gábor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2017. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, abs/1712.07040.
  • Lei et al. (2018) Jie Lei, Licheng Yu, Mohit Bansal, and Tamara L Berg. 2018. Tvqa: Localized, compositional video question answering. In EMNLP.
  • Nguyen et al. (2016) 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, abs/1611.09268.
  • Pasunuru and Bansal (2018) Ramakanth Pasunuru and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Game-based video-context dialogue. In EMNLP.
  • Peters et al. (2018) Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Rajpurkar et al. (2018) Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don’t know: Unanswerable questions for squad. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Rajpurkar et al. (2016) Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  • Reddy et al. (2018) Siva Reddy, Danqi Chen, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. Coqa: A conversational question answering challenge. ArXiv.
  • Richardson et al. (2013) Matthew Richardson, Christopher JC Burges, and Erin Renshaw. 2013. Mctest: A challenge dataset for the open-domain machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 193–203.
  • Saeidi et al. (2018) Marzieh Saeidi, Max Bartolo, Patrick Lewis, Sameer Signh, Tim Rocktäschel, Mike Sheldon, Guillaume Bouchard, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Interpretation of natural language rules in conversational machine reading. In Proceedings of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  • Saha et al. (2018) Amrita Saha, Vardaan Pahuja, Mitesh M Khapra, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, and Sarath Chandar. 2018. Complex sequential question answering: Towards learning to converse over linked question answer pairs with a knowledge graph. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
  • Seo et al. (2016) Minjoon Seo, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. Bidirectional attention flow for machine comprehension. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations.
  • Talmor and Berant (2018) A. Talmor and J. Berant. 2018. The web as knowledge-base for answering complex questions. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Tapaswi et al. (2016) Makarand Tapaswi, Yukun Zhu, Rainer Stiefelhagen, Antonio Torralba, Raquel Urtasun, and Sanja Fidler. 2016. Movieqa: Understanding stories in movies through question-answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4631–4640.
  • Trischler et al. (2016) Adam Trischler, Tong Wang, Xingdi Yuan, Justin Harris, Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, and Kaheer Suleman. 2016. Newsqa: A machine comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09830.
  • Voorhees (2001) Ellen M Voorhees. 2001. The trec question answering track. Natural Language Engineering, 7(4):361–378.
  • Wang et al. (2018) Wei Wang, Ming Yan, and Chen Wu. 2018. Multi-granularity hierarchical attention fusion networks for reading comprehension and question answering. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 1705–1714.
  • Wang et al. (2017) Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, Baobao Chang, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Gated self-matching networks for reading comprehension and question answering. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 189–198.
  • Yang et al. (2018) 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 Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
Add comment
Loading ...
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test description