mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Framework for Evaluation of Machine Reading Comprehension Gold Standards

arXiv 2003.04642 ↗First posted 10 Mar 2020cs.CLcited by 18

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC) is the task of answering a question over a paragraph of text. While neural MRC systems gain popularity and achieve noticeable performance, issues are being raised with the methodology used to establish their performance, particularly concerning the data design of gold standards that are used to evaluate them. There is but a limited understanding of the challenges present in this data, which makes it hard to draw comparisons and formulate reliable hypotheses. As a first step towards alleviating the problem, this paper proposes a unifying framework to systematically investigate the present linguistic features, required reasoning and background knowledge and factual correctness on one hand, and the presence of lexical cues as a lower bound for the requirement of understanding on the other hand. We propose a qualitative annotation schema for the first and a set of approximative metrics for the latter. In a first application of the framework, we analyse modern MRC gold standards and present our findings: the absence of features that contribute towards lexical ambiguity, the varying factual correctness of the expected answers and the presence of lexical cues, all of which potentially lower the reading comprehension complexity and quality of the evaluation data.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 Mar 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

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

18 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Setscited by 201
  2. 2021QA Dataset Explosion: A Taxonomy of NLP Resources for Question Answering and Reading Comprehensioncited by 91
  3. 2021Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theorycited by 57
  4. 2023It Takes Two to Tango: Navigating Conceptualizations of NLP Tasks and Measurements of Performancecited by 26
  5. 2022Machine Reading, Fast and Slow: When Do Models "Understand" Language?cited by 13
  6. 2021Do Natural Language Explanations Represent Valid Logical Arguments? Verifying Entailment in Explainable NLI Gold Standardscited by 12
  7. 2024Seemingly Plausible Distractors in Multi-Hop Reasoning: Are Large Language Models Attentive Readers?cited by 10
  8. 2022Can Transformers Reason in Fragments of Natural Language?cited by 8
  9. 2022WLASL-LEX: a Dataset for Recognising Phonological Properties in American Sign Languagecited by 6
  10. 2022A Survey on Measuring and Mitigating Reasoning Shortcuts in Machine Reading Comprehensioncited by 4
  11. 2022Feeding What You Need by Understanding What You Learnedcited by 3
  12. 2025Pay Attention to Real World Perturbations! Natural Robustness Evaluation in Machine Reading Comprehensioncited by 2
6 more
  1. 2023On Degrees of Freedom in Defining and Testing Natural Language Understandingcited by 1
  2. 2024A Systematic Survey of Natural Language Processing for the Greek Languagecited by 1
  3. 2025Natural Context Drift Undermines the Natural Language Understanding of Large Language Modelscited by 1
  4. 2026An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systemscited by 1
  5. 2024Investigating a Benchmark for Training-set free Evaluation of Linguistic Capabilities in Machine Reading Comprehensioncited by 0
  6. 2025MRCEval: A Comprehensive, Challenging and Accessible Machine Reading Comprehension Benchmarkcited by 0