mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What Does My QA Model Know? Devising Controlled Probes using Expert Knowledge

arXiv 1912.13337 ↗First posted 31 Dec 2019cs.CLcited by 19

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Open-domain question answering (QA) is known to involve several underlying knowledge and reasoning challenges, but are models actually learning such knowledge when trained on benchmark tasks? To investigate this, we introduce several new challenge tasks that probe whether state-of-the-art QA models have general knowledge about word definitions and general taxonomic reasoning, both of which are fundamental to more complex forms of reasoning and are widespread in benchmark datasets. As an alternative to expensive crowd-sourcing, we introduce a methodology for automatically building datasets from various types of expert knowledge (e.g., knowledge graphs and lexical taxonomies), allowing for systematic control over the resulting probes and for a more comprehensive evaluation. We find automatically constructing probes to be vulnerable to annotation artifacts, which we carefully control for. Our evaluation confirms that transformer-based QA models are already predisposed to recognize certain types of structural lexical knowledge. However, it also reveals a more nuanced picture: their performance degrades substantially with even a slight increase in the number of hops in the underlying taxonomic hierarchy, or as more challenging distractor candidate answers are introduced. Further, even when these models succeed at the standard instance-level evaluation, they leave much room for improvement when assessed at the level of clusters of semantically connected probes (e.g., all Isa questions about a concept).

Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 31 Dec 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 8; 2022: 3; 2023: 5; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

19 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.1, Knowledge Storage and Extractioncited by 264
  2. 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.2, Knowledge Manipulationcited by 142
  3. 2023Inspecting and Editing Knowledge Representations in Language Modelscited by 140
  4. 2025Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Abovecited by 51
  5. 2021Prompting Contrastive Explanations for Commonsense Reasoning Taskscited by 45
  6. 2022Commonsense Knowledge Reasoning and Generation with Pre-trained Language Models: A Surveycited by 38
  7. 2021Commonsense-Focused Dialogues for Response Generation: An Empirical Studycited by 30
  8. 2021Thinking Aloud: Dynamic Context Generation Improves Zero-Shot Reasoning Performance of GPT-2cited by 15
  9. 2021Probing Commonsense Explanation in Dialogue Response Generationcited by 13
  10. 2021Exploring Strategies for Generalizable Commonsense Reasoning with Pre-trained Modelscited by 11
  11. 2021Identify, Align, and Integrate: Matching Knowledge Graphs to Commonsense Reasoning Taskscited by 9
  12. 2021Is My Model Using The Right Evidence? Systematic Probes for Examining Evidence-Based Tabular Reasoningcited by 9
7 more
  1. 2021Open Relation Modeling: Learning to Define Relations between Entitiescited by 7
  2. 2022Curriculum: A Broad-Coverage Benchmark for Linguistic Phenomena in Natural Language Understandingcited by 3
  3. 2023Few-Shot Dialogue Summarization via Skeleton-Assisted Prompt Transfer in Prompt Tuningcited by 3
  4. 2026BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarkscited by 3
  5. 2023Probing Pretrained Language Models with Hierarchy Propertiescited by 2
  6. 2022A Survey of Parameters Associated with the Quality of Benchmarks in NLPcited by 1
  7. 2024Assessing biomedical knowledge robustness in large language models by query-efficient sampling attackscited by 1