XMQAs: Constructing Complex-Modified Question-Answering Dataset for Robust Question Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Question understanding is an important issue to the success of a Knowledge-based Question Answering (KBQA) system.However, the existing study does not pay enough attention to this issue given that the questions in the existing KBQA datasets are usually expressed in simple and straightforward way. This is not in line with the actual linguistic conventions, which often use a lot of modifiers. To facilitate the study on evaluating and enhancing the question understanding ability of the KBQA systems, this paper proposes to construct a complex-modified question-answering (XMQAs) dataset based on existing KBQA datasets. With the help of knowledge bases and dictionaries, three kinds of modifiers are defined and applied to original simple-expressed questions. These modifiers could make the expression of these questions complex without changing their semantics. Based on XMQAs, we then propose a novel question understanding algorithm upon existing KBQA models, which greatly improves the robustness of their question understanding abilities. We conduct extensive experiments on XMQAs and two widely acknowledged KBQA datasets. The empirical results demonstrate that our proposed algorithm can improve the performance of KBQA models on not only the complex-modified questions, but also simple-expressed questions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".