Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How Many Answers Should I Give? An Empirical Study of Multi-Answer Reading Comprehension

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 2306.00435 v1 pith:I6MXVGQK submitted 2023-06-01 cs.CL

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

The multi-answer phenomenon, where a question may have multiple answers scattered in the document, can be well handled by humans but is challenging enough for machine reading comprehension (MRC) systems. Despite recent progress in multi-answer MRC, there lacks a systematic analysis of how this phenomenon arises and how to better address it. In this work, we design a taxonomy to categorize commonly-seen multi-answer MRC instances, with which we inspect three multi-answer datasets and analyze where the multi-answer challenge comes from. We further analyze how well different paradigms of current multi-answer MRC models deal with different types of multi-answer instances. We find that some paradigms capture well the key information in the questions while others better model the relationship between questions and contexts. We thus explore strategies to make the best of the strengths of different paradigms. Experiments show that generation models can be a promising platform to incorporate different paradigms. Our annotations and code are released for further research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Evaluating List Construction and Temporal Understanding capabilities of Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark shows LLMs give incomplete lists and inaccurate time intervals for temporal list questions, and retrieval helps only partly.

Pith tools