Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

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

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 2312.07592 v1 pith:K53HHLYC submitted 2023-12-11 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords chatgptquestionansweringquestionsmodelmodelsperformanceprovided
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Assessing Reliability of BERT-Based Models on Question Answering Tasks

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Across SQuAD and QuAC, RoBERTa and DistilBERT are generally more stable under Monte Carlo dropout, while ALBERT and BERT-Base are less consistent, and paraphrase perturbation changes the ranking.

  2. LP-LM: No Hallucinations in Question Answering with Logic Programming

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    LP-LM uses Prolog DCG parsing and unification over a knowledge base to answer simple questions, so answers are grounded in stored facts rather than sampled from a language model.

Pith tools