Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Why Machine Reading Comprehension Models Learn Shortcuts?

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 2106.01024 v1 pith:QSQQWO3P submitted 2021-06-02 cs.CL

Why Machine Reading Comprehension Models Learn Shortcuts?

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

Recent studies report that many machine reading comprehension (MRC) models can perform closely to or even better than humans on benchmark datasets. However, existing works indicate that many MRC models may learn shortcuts to outwit these benchmarks, but the performance is unsatisfactory in real-world applications. In this work, we attempt to explore, instead of the expected comprehension skills, why these models learn the shortcuts. Based on the observation that a large portion of questions in current datasets have shortcut solutions, we argue that larger proportion of shortcut questions in training data make models rely on shortcut tricks excessively. To investigate this hypothesis, we carefully design two synthetic datasets with annotations that indicate whether a question can be answered using shortcut solutions. We further propose two new methods to quantitatively analyze the learning difficulty regarding shortcut and challenging questions, and revealing the inherent learning mechanism behind the different performance between the two kinds of questions. A thorough empirical analysis shows that MRC models tend to learn shortcut questions earlier than challenging questions, and the high proportions of shortcut questions in training sets hinder models from exploring the sophisticated reasoning skills in the later stage of training.

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. CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching

    cs.AI 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new benchmark and training strategy show LLMs trained to internalize causal reasoning steps are less fooled by semantically similar, label-flipped questions than models using explicit chain-of-thought.