Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Reading for 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
To answer the question in machine comprehension (MC) task, the models need to establish the interaction between the question and the context. To tackle the problem that the single-pass model cannot reflect on and correct its answer, we present Ruminating Reader. Ruminating Reader adds a second pass of attention and a novel information fusion component to the Bi-Directional Attention Flow model (BIDAF). We propose novel layer structures that construct a query aware context vector representation and fuse encoding representation with intermediate representation on top of BIDAF model. We show that a multi-hop attention mechanism can be applied to a bi-directional attention structure. In experiments on SQuAD, we find that the Reader outperforms the BIDAF baseline by 2.1 F1 score and 2.7 EM score. Our analysis shows that different hops of the attention have different responsibilities in selecting answers.
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 | 0.001 | 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