Can Question Generation Debias Question Answering Models? A Case Study on Question-Context Lexical Overlap
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Question answering (QA) models for reading comprehension have been demonstrated to exploit unintended dataset biases such as question-context lexical overlap. This hinders QA models from generalizing to under-represented samples such as questions with low lexical overlap. Question generation (QG), a method for augmenting QA datasets, can be a solution for such performance degradation if QG can properly debias QA datasets. However, we discover that recent neural QG models are biased towards generating questions with high lexical overlap, which can amplify the dataset bias. Moreover, our analysis reveals that data augmentation with these QG models frequently impairs the performance on questions with low lexical overlap, while improving that on questions with high lexical overlap. To address this problem, we use a synonym replacement-based approach to augment questions with low lexical overlap. We demonstrate that the proposed data augmentation approach is simple yet effective to mitigate the degradation problem with only 70k synthetic examples. Our data is publicly available at https://github.com/KazutoshiShinoda/Synonym-Replacement.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2021.
Builds on
26 of 35 references.
References · 26
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2019EDA: Easy Data Augmentation Techniques for Boosting Performance on Text Classification Taskscited by 800
- 2015Improving Neural Machine Translation Models with Monolingual Datacited by 784
- 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
- 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
- 2016Incorporating Copying Mechanism in Sequence-to-Sequence Learningcited by 217
- 2017Learning to Ask: Neural Question Generation for Reading Comprehensioncited by 186
- 2020Look at the First Sentence: Position Bias in Question Answeringcited by 83
- 2017Neural Question Generation from Text: A Preliminary Studycited by 78
14 more
- 2019Learning and Evaluating General Linguistic Intelligencecited by 78
- 2016Understanding data augmentation for classification: when to warp?cited by 74
- 2019Addressing Semantic Drift in Question Generation for Semi-Supervised Question Answeringcited by 63
- 2019MultiQA: An Empirical Investigation of Generalization and Transfer in Reading Comprehensioncited by 60
- 2018What Makes Reading Comprehension Questions Easier?cited by 59
- 2018Harvesting Paragraph-Level Question-Answer Pairs from Wikipediacited by 49
- 2020What do Models Learn from Question Answering Datasets?cited by 45
- 2016Pointing the Unknown Wordscited by 42
- 2019On The Evaluation of Machine Translation Systems Trained With Back-Translationcited by 40
- 2020Towards Robustifying NLI Models Against Lexical Dataset Biasescited by 34
- 2020Generating Diverse and Consistent QA pairs from Contexts with Information-Maximizing Hierarchical Conditional VAEscited by 31
- 2017Semi-Supervised QA with Generative Domain-Adaptive Netscited by 27
- 2018Simple and Effective Semi-Supervised Question Answeringcited by 22
- 2020Improving the Robustness of QA Models to Challenge Sets with Variational Question-Answer Pair Generationcited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
8 papers.
- 2022Hyperlink-induced Pre-training for Passage Retrieval in Open-domain Question Answeringcited by 14
- 2022Low-Resource Dense Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 14
- 2022Which Shortcut Solution Do Question Answering Models Prefer to Learn?cited by 9
- 2022Look to the Right: Mitigating Relative Position Bias in Extractive Question Answeringcited by 7
- 2023Think Twice: Measuring the Efficiency of Eliminating Prediction Shortcuts of Question Answering Modelscited by 6
- 2023XAIQA: Explainer-Based Data Augmentation for Extractive Question Answeringcited by 0
- 2025Can Out-of-Distribution Evaluations Uncover Reliance on Shortcuts? A Case Study in Question Answeringcited by 0
- 2026Debiasing Reward Models via Causally Motivated Inference-Time Interventioncited by 0
- 2026Debiasing Reward Models via Causally Motivated Inference-Time Intervention30 Apr 2026
- 2025Can Out-of-Distribution Evaluations Uncover Reliance on Shortcuts? A Case Study in Question Answering25 Aug 2025
- 2023XAIQA: Explainer-Based Data Augmentation for Extractive Question Answering6 Dec 2023
- 2023Think Twice: Measuring the Efficiency of Eliminating Prediction Shortcuts of Question Answering Models11 May 2023
- 2022Which Shortcut Solution Do Question Answering Models Prefer to Learn?29 Nov 2022
- 2022Look to the Right: Mitigating Relative Position Bias in Extractive Question Answering26 Oct 2022
- 2022Low-Resource Dense Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering: A Comprehensive Survey5 Aug 2022
- 2022Hyperlink-induced Pre-training for Passage Retrieval in Open-domain Question Answering14 Mar 2022