Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Question and Answer Test-Train Overlap in Open-Domain Question Answering Datasets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2008.02637 v1 pith:UNMASM22 submitted 2020-08-06 cs.CL cs.AI

Question and Answer Test-Train Overlap in Open-Domain Question Answering Datasets

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords trainingmodelsopen-domainquestionquestionssetsansweringanswers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Ideally Open-Domain Question Answering models should exhibit a number of competencies, ranging from simply memorizing questions seen at training time, to answering novel question formulations with answers seen during training, to generalizing to completely novel questions with novel answers. However, single aggregated test set scores do not show the full picture of what capabilities models truly have. In this work, we perform a detailed study of the test sets of three popular open-domain benchmark datasets with respect to these competencies. We find that 60-70% of test-time answers are also present somewhere in the training sets. We also find that 30% of test-set questions have a near-duplicate paraphrase in their corresponding training sets. Using these findings, we evaluate a variety of popular open-domain models to obtain greater insight into what extent they can actually generalize, and what drives their overall performance. We find that all models perform dramatically worse on questions that cannot be memorized from training sets, with a mean absolute performance difference of 63% between repeated and non-repeated data. Finally we show that simple nearest-neighbor models out-perform a BART closed-book QA model, further highlighting the role that training set memorization plays in these benchmarks

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LIMO: Less is More for Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LIMO achieves 63.3% on AIME24 and 95.6% on MATH500 via supervised fine-tuning on roughly 1% of the data used by prior models, supporting the claim that minimal strategic examples suffice when pre-training has already ...

  2. Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection

    cs.CL 2023-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Self-RAG trains LLMs to adaptively retrieve passages on demand and self-critique using reflection tokens, outperforming ChatGPT and retrieval-augmented Llama2 on QA, reasoning, and fact verification.

  3. Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models

    cs.CL 2021-12 accept novelty 6.0

    The authors provide a detailed taxonomy of 21 risks associated with language models, covering discrimination, information leaks, misinformation, malicious applications, interaction harms, and societal impacts like job...