pith. sign in

arxiv: 2112.07772 · v1 · pith:LXVJEOLInew · submitted 2021-12-14 · 💻 cs.CL

Do Answers to Boolean Questions Need Explanations? Yes

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords evidencebooleanexistingquestionsuserannotationsanswersboolq
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Existing datasets that contain boolean questions, such as BoolQ and TYDI QA , provide the user with a YES/NO response to the question. However, a one word response is not sufficient for an explainable system. We promote explainability by releasing a new set of annotations marking the evidence in existing TyDi QA and BoolQ datasets. We show that our annotations can be used to train a model that extracts improved evidence spans compared to models that rely on existing resources. We confirm our findings with a user study which shows that our extracted evidence spans enhance the user experience. We also provide further insight into the challenges of answering boolean questions, such as passages containing conflicting YES and NO answers, and varying degrees of relevance of the predicted evidence.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Diverse LLMs or Diverse Question Interpretations? That is the Ensembling Question

    cs.CL 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Question interpretation diversity outperforms model diversity for LLM ensembling on binary QA tasks using majority voting.