Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Comparative Study of Transformer-Based Language Models on Extractive Question Answering

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 2110.03142 v1 pith:NQRMBV2T submitted 2021-10-07 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelslanguagedatasetsansweringmodelquestionpre-trainedacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Question Answering (QA) is a task in natural language processing that has seen considerable growth after the advent of transformers. There has been a surge in QA datasets that have been proposed to challenge natural language processing models to improve human and existing model performance. Many pre-trained language models have proven to be incredibly effective at the task of extractive question answering. However, generalizability remains as a challenge for the majority of these models. That is, some datasets require models to reason more than others. In this paper, we train various pre-trained language models and fine-tune them on multiple question answering datasets of varying levels of difficulty to determine which of the models are capable of generalizing the most comprehensively across different datasets. Further, we propose a new architecture, BERT-BiLSTM, and compare it with other language models to determine if adding more bidirectionality can improve model performance. Using the F1-score as our metric, we find that the RoBERTa and BART pre-trained models perform the best across all datasets and that our BERT-BiLSTM model outperforms the baseline BERT model.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. CaresAI at BioCreative IX Track 1 -- LLM for Biomedical QA

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Fine-tuned LLaMA 3 8B reaches ~0.8 concept-level accuracy on MedHopQA development data but only ~0.5 exact match in validation and 0.0 to 0.2 on the test set.

  2. A Survey of the State-of-the-Art in Conversational Question Answering Systems

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review that categorizes ConvQA components, techniques, models, and datasets, with no new experimental result.

Pith tools