Exploiting redundancy in question answering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our goal is to automatically answer brief factual questions of the form ``When was the Battle of Hastings?'' or ``Who wrote The Wind in the Willows?''. Since the answer to nearly any such question can now be found somewhere on the Web, the problem reduces to finding potential answers in large volumes of data and validating their accuracy. We apply a method for arbitrary passage retrieval to the first half of the problem and demonstrate that answer redundancy can be used to address the second half. The success of our approach depends on the idea that the volume of available Web data is large enough to supply the answer to most factual questions multiple times and in multiple contexts. A query is generated from a question and this query is used to select short passages that may contain the answer from a large collection of Web data. These passages are analyzed to identify candidate answers. The frequency of these candidates within the passages is used to ``vote'' for the most likely answer. The approach is experimentally tested on questions taken from the TREC-9 question-answering test collection. As an additional demonstration, the approach is extended to answer multiple choice trivia questions of the form typically asked in trivia quizzes and television game shows.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it