mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Can Question Generation Debias Question Answering Models? A Case Study on Question-Context Lexical Overlap

arXiv 2109.11256 ↗First posted 23 Sep 2021cs.CL cs.AIcited by 8

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

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  3. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  4. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
  5. 2019EDA: Easy Data Augmentation Techniques for Boosting Performance on Text Classification Taskscited by 800
  6. 2015Improving Neural Machine Translation Models with Monolingual Datacited by 784
  7. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
  8. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
  9. 2016Incorporating Copying Mechanism in Sequence-to-Sequence Learningcited by 217
  10. 2017Learning to Ask: Neural Question Generation for Reading Comprehensioncited by 186
  11. 2020Look at the First Sentence: Position Bias in Question Answeringcited by 83
  12. 2017Neural Question Generation from Text: A Preliminary Studycited by 78
14 more
  1. 2019Learning and Evaluating General Linguistic Intelligencecited by 78
  2. 2016Understanding data augmentation for classification: when to warp?cited by 74
  3. 2019Addressing Semantic Drift in Question Generation for Semi-Supervised Question Answeringcited by 63
  4. 2019MultiQA: An Empirical Investigation of Generalization and Transfer in Reading Comprehensioncited by 60
  5. 2018What Makes Reading Comprehension Questions Easier?cited by 59
  6. 2018Harvesting Paragraph-Level Question-Answer Pairs from Wikipediacited by 49
  7. 2020What do Models Learn from Question Answering Datasets?cited by 45
  8. 2016Pointing the Unknown Wordscited by 42
  9. 2019On The Evaluation of Machine Translation Systems Trained With Back-Translationcited by 40
  10. 2020Towards Robustifying NLI Models Against Lexical Dataset Biasescited by 34
  11. 2020Generating Diverse and Consistent QA pairs from Contexts with Information-Maximizing Hierarchical Conditional VAEscited by 31
  12. 2017Semi-Supervised QA with Generative Domain-Adaptive Netscited by 27
  13. 2018Simple and Effective Semi-Supervised Question Answeringcited by 22
  14. 2020Improving the Robustness of QA Models to Challenge Sets with Variational Question-Answer Pair Generationcited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

8 papers.