mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating ChatGPT as a Question Answering System: A Comprehensive Analysis and Comparison with Existing Models

arXiv 2312.07592 ↗First posted 11 Dec 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In the current era, a multitude of language models has emerged to cater to user inquiries. Notably, the GPT-3.5 Turbo language model has gained substantial attention as the underlying technology for ChatGPT. Leveraging extensive parameters, this model adeptly responds to a wide range of questions. However, due to its reliance on internal knowledge, the accuracy of responses may not be absolute. This article scrutinizes ChatGPT as a Question Answering System (QAS), comparing its performance to other existing QASs. The primary focus is on evaluating ChatGPT's proficiency in extracting responses from provided paragraphs, a core QAS capability. Additionally, performance comparisons are made in scenarios without a surrounding passage. Multiple experiments, exploring response hallucination and considering question complexity, were conducted on ChatGPT. Evaluation employed well-known Question Answering (QA) datasets, including SQuAD, NewsQA, and PersianQuAD, across English and Persian languages. Metrics such as F-score, exact match, and accuracy were employed in the assessment. The study reveals that, while ChatGPT demonstrates competence as a generative model, it is less effective in question answering compared to task-specific models. Providing context improves its performance, and prompt engineering enhances precision, particularly for questions lacking explicit answers in provided paragraphs. ChatGPT excels at simpler factual questions compared to "how" and "why" question types. The evaluation highlights occurrences of hallucinations, where ChatGPT provides responses to questions without available answers in the provided context.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Dec 2023.

Builds on

14 of 22 references.

References · 14

  1. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  2. 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,801
  3. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
  4. 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
  5. 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
  6. 2019SpanBERT: Improving Pre-training by Representing and Predicting Spanscited by 832
  7. 2016NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Datasetcited by 330
  8. 2020LUKE: Deep Contextualized Entity Representations with Entity-aware Self-attentioncited by 326
  9. 2021Retrieving and Reading: A Comprehensive Survey on Open-domain Question Answeringcited by 178
  10. 2022Improving the Domain Adaptation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) Models for Open Domain Question Answeringcited by 126
  11. 2020Retrospective Reader for Machine Reading Comprehensioncited by 86
  12. 2023ChatGPT versus Traditional Question Answering for Knowledge Graphs: Current Status and Future Directions Towards Knowledge Graph Chatbotscited by 47
2 more
  1. 2018A Question-Focused Multi-Factor Attention Network for Question Answeringcited by 7
  2. 2018Densely Connected Attention Propagation for Reading Comprehensioncited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 6; 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

11 papers.