mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Which Shortcut Solution Do Question Answering Models Prefer to Learn?

arXiv 2211.16220 ↗First posted 29 Nov 2022cs.CLcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Question answering (QA) models for reading comprehension tend to learn shortcut solutions rather than the solutions intended by QA datasets. QA models that have learned shortcut solutions can achieve human-level performance in shortcut examples where shortcuts are valid, but these same behaviors degrade generalization potential on anti-shortcut examples where shortcuts are invalid. Various methods have been proposed to mitigate this problem, but they do not fully take the characteristics of shortcuts themselves into account. We assume that the learnability of shortcuts, i.e., how easy it is to learn a shortcut, is useful to mitigate the problem. Thus, we first examine the learnability of the representative shortcuts on extractive and multiple-choice QA datasets. Behavioral tests using biased training sets reveal that shortcuts that exploit answer positions and word-label correlations are preferentially learned for extractive and multiple-choice QA, respectively. We find that the more learnable a shortcut is, the flatter and deeper the loss landscape is around the shortcut solution in the parameter space. We also find that the availability of the preferred shortcuts tends to make the task easier to perform from an information-theoretic viewpoint. Lastly, we experimentally show that the learnability of shortcuts can be utilized to construct an effective QA training set; the more learnable a shortcut is, the smaller the proportion of anti-shortcut examples required to achieve comparable performance on shortcut and anti-shortcut examples. We claim that the learnability of shortcuts should be considered when designing mitigation methods.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Nov 2022.

Builds on

32 of 44 references.

References · 32

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  4. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  5. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
  6. 2017Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Netscited by 1,130
  7. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 876
  8. 2017RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinationscited by 861
  9. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 671
  10. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 571
  11. 2019Don't Take the Easy Way Out: Ensemble Based Methods for Avoiding Known Dataset Biasescited by 280
  12. 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 232
20 more
  1. 2020ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoningcited by 217
  2. 2020Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AIcited by 167
  3. 2020Beat the AI: Investigating Adversarial Human Annotation for Reading Comprehensioncited by 131
  4. 2020Towards Debiasing NLU Models from Unknown Biasescited by 116
  5. 2020Adversarial Training for Large Neural Language Modelscited by 111
  6. 2020InfoBERT: Improving Robustness of Language Models from An Information Theoretic Perspectivecited by 92
  7. 2021Competency Problems: On Finding and Removing Artifacts in Language Datacited by 91
  8. 2020Look at the First Sentence: Position Bias in Question Answeringcited by 84
  9. 2019Avoiding Reasoning Shortcuts: Adversarial Evaluation, Training, and Model Development for Multi-Hop QAcited by 63
  10. 2018What Makes Reading Comprehension Questions Easier?cited by 60
  11. 2020The Surprising Simplicity of the Early-Time Learning Dynamics of Neural Networkscited by 58
  12. 2021Which Shortcut Cues Will DNNs Choose? A Study from the Parameter-Space Perspectivecited by 57
  13. 2019Assessing the Benchmarking Capacity of Machine Reading Comprehension Datasetscited by 46
  14. 2021Why Machine Reading Comprehension Models Learn Shortcuts?cited by 40
  15. 2017Making Neural QA as Simple as Possible but not Simplercited by 33
  16. 2017Semi-Supervised QA with Generative Domain-Adaptive Netscited by 27
  17. 2021Rissanen Data Analysis: Examining Dataset Characteristics via Description Lengthcited by 22
  18. 2020Improving QA Generalization by Concurrent Modeling of Multiple Biasescited by 12
  19. 2020Improving the Robustness of QA Models to Challenge Sets with Variational Question-Answer Pair Generationcited by 10
  20. 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 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

9 papers.