mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What Makes Reading Comprehension Questions Difficult?

arXiv 2203.06342 ↗First posted 12 Mar 2022cs.CL cs.AIcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

For a natural language understanding benchmark to be useful in research, it has to consist of examples that are diverse and difficult enough to discriminate among current and near-future state-of-the-art systems. However, we do not yet know how best to select text sources to collect a variety of challenging examples. In this study, we crowdsource multiple-choice reading comprehension questions for passages taken from seven qualitatively distinct sources, analyzing what attributes of passages contribute to the difficulty and question types of the collected examples. To our surprise, we find that passage source, length, and readability measures do not significantly affect question difficulty. Through our manual annotation of seven reasoning types, we observe several trends between passage sources and reasoning types, e.g., logical reasoning is more often required in questions written for technical passages. These results suggest that when creating a new benchmark dataset, selecting a diverse set of passages can help ensure a diverse range of question types, but that passage difficulty need not be a priority.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2022.

Builds on

29 of 49 references.

References · 29

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  4. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
  5. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  6. 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,157
  7. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  8. 2019DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphscited by 883
  9. 2017RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinationscited by 851
  10. 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 683
  11. 2017The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challengecited by 590
  12. 2020UnifiedQA: Crossing Format Boundaries With a Single QA Systemcited by 475
17 more
  1. 2021Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLPcited by 447
  2. 2016NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Datasetcited by 330
  3. 2019Cosmos QA: Machine Reading Comprehension with Contextual Commonsense Reasoningcited by 281
  4. 2021ERNIE 3.0: Large-scale Knowledge Enhanced Pre-training for Language Understanding and Generationcited by 258
  5. 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
  6. 2019MRQA 2019 Shared Task: Evaluating Generalization in Reading Comprehensioncited by 183
  7. 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 148
  8. 2020Beat the AI: Investigating Adversarial Human Annotation for Reading Comprehensioncited by 131
  9. 2020UnQovering Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questionscited by 124
  10. 2019Compositional Questions Do Not Necessitate Multi-hop Reasoningcited by 87
  11. 2018How Much Reading Does Reading Comprehension Require? A Critical Investigation of Popular Benchmarkscited by 86
  12. 2020TORQUE: A Reading Comprehension Dataset of Temporal Ordering Questionscited by 65
  13. 2019Understanding Dataset Design Choices for Multi-hop Reasoningcited by 50
  14. 2020ANLIzing the Adversarial Natural Language Inference Datasetcited by 36
  15. 2021On the Efficacy of Adversarial Data Collection for Question Answering: Results from a Large-Scale Randomized Studycited by 30
  16. 2021What Ingredients Make for an Effective Crowdsourcing Protocol for Difficult NLU Data Collection Tasks?cited by 23
  17. 2021Quantifying and Avoiding Unfair Qualification Labour in Crowdsourcingcited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 2.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023Evaluating the Rationale Understanding of Critical Reasoning in Logical Reading Comprehension
  2. 2026What Makes Something Hard(er)? Explaining Question Difficulty in Natural Language
  3. 2025Can LLMs Estimate Cognitive Complexity of Reading Comprehension Items?
  4. 2025KRISTEVA: Close Reading as a Novel Task for Benchmarking Interpretive Reasoning
  5. 2025Automatic Generation of Inference Making Questions for Reading Comprehension Assessments
  6. 2026Load-Bearing Context: The Question Damage Score for Evaluating Context Reliance in Linguistic Reasoning
  7. 2025NaturalReasoning: Reasoning in the Wild with 2.8M Challenging Questions
  8. 2023NLPBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Solving NLP Problems