mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

World Knowledge in Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension

arXiv 2211.07040 ↗First posted 13 Nov 2022cs.CL cs.AIcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recently it has been shown that without any access to the contextual passage, multiple choice reading comprehension (MCRC) systems are able to answer questions significantly better than random on average. These systems use their accumulated "world knowledge" to directly answer questions, rather than using information from the passage. This paper examines the possibility of exploiting this observation as a tool for test designers to ensure that the use of "world knowledge" is acceptable for a particular set of questions. We propose information-theory based metrics that enable the level of "world knowledge" exploited by systems to be assessed. Two metrics are described: the expected number of options, which measures whether a passage-free system can identify the answer a question using world knowledge; and the contextual mutual information, which measures the importance of context for a given question. We demonstrate that questions with low expected number of options, and hence answerable by the shortcut system, are often similarly answerable by humans without context. This highlights that the general knowledge 'shortcuts' could be equally used by exam candidates, and that our proposed metrics may be helpful for future test designers to monitor the quality of questions.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Nov 2022.

Builds on

20 of 24 references.

References · 20

  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. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  4. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  5. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  6. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
  7. 2020Big Bird: Transformers for Longer Sequencescited by 1,673
  8. 2017RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinationscited by 851
  9. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
  10. 2016NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Datasetcited by 330
  11. 2020LUKE: Deep Contextualized Entity Representations with Entity-aware Self-attentioncited by 326
  12. 2019Cosmos QA: Machine Reading Comprehension with Contextual Commonsense Reasoningcited by 281
8 more
  1. 2020ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoningcited by 211
  2. 2021QuALITY: Question Answering with Long Input Texts, Yes!cited by 204
  3. 2022Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Modelscited by 130
  4. 2018How Much Reading Does Reading Comprehension Require? A Critical Investigation of Popular Benchmarkscited by 86
  5. 2020Retrospective Reader for Machine Reading Comprehensioncited by 86
  6. 2019Assessing the Benchmarking Capacity of Machine Reading Comprehension Datasetscited by 46
  7. 2021Logic-Driven Context Extension and Data Augmentation for Logical Reasoning of Textcited by 46
  8. 2019What does BERT Learn from Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension Datasets?cited by 30

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 5; 2024: 1.

6 papers.