mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Look to the Right: Mitigating Relative Position Bias in Extractive Question Answering

arXiv 2210.14541 ↗First posted 26 Oct 2022cs.CLcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Extractive question answering (QA) models tend to exploit spurious correlations to make predictions when a training set has unintended biases. This tendency results in models not being generalizable to examples where the correlations do not hold. Determining the spurious correlations QA models can exploit is crucial in building generalizable QA models in real-world applications; moreover, a method needs to be developed that prevents these models from learning the spurious correlations even when a training set is biased. In this study, we discovered that the relative position of an answer, which is defined as the relative distance from an answer span to the closest question-context overlap word, can be exploited by QA models as superficial cues for making predictions. Specifically, we find that when the relative positions in a training set are biased, the performance on examples with relative positions unseen during training is significantly degraded. To mitigate the performance degradation for unseen relative positions, we propose an ensemble-based debiasing method that does not require prior knowledge about the distribution of relative positions. We demonstrate that the proposed method mitigates the models' reliance on relative positions using the biased and full SQuAD dataset. We hope that this study can help enhance the generalization ability of QA models in real-world applications.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Oct 2022.

Builds on

16 of 19 references.

References · 16

  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. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
  6. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  7. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
  8. 2019Don't Take the Easy Way Out: Ensemble Based Methods for Avoiding Known Dataset Biasescited by 279
  9. 2016Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehensioncited by 278
  10. 2019MRQA 2019 Shared Task: Evaluating Generalization in Reading Comprehensioncited by 183
  11. 2019Unlearn Dataset Bias in Natural Language Inference by Fitting the Residualcited by 119
  12. 2020Mind the Trade-off: Debiasing NLU Models without Degrading the In-distribution Performancecited by 85
4 more
  1. 2020Look at the First Sentence: Position Bias in Question Answeringcited by 83
  2. 2018What Makes Reading Comprehension Questions Easier?cited by 59
  3. 2017Making Neural QA as Simple as Possible but not Simplercited by 33
  4. 2021Can Question Generation Debias Question Answering Models? A Case Study on Question-Context Lexical Overlapcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

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

7 papers.