MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416673024 · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11421-5

Exploring unanswerability in machine reading comprehension: approaches, benchmarks, and open challenges

2025· article· en· W4416673024 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKey (lock)ComprehensionReading (process)Work (physics)Reading comprehension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenge of unanswerable questions in Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC) has drawn considerable attention, as current MRC systems are typically designed under the assumption that every question has a valid answer within the provided context. However, these systems often encounter real-world situations where no valid answer is available. This paper provides a comprehensive review of existing methods for addressing unanswerable questions in MRC systems, categorizing them into model-agnostic and model-specific approaches. It explores key strategies, examines relevant datasets, and evaluates commonly used metrics. This work aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of current techniques and identify critical gaps in the field, offering insights and key challenges to direct future research toward developing more robust MRC systems capable of handling unanswerable 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.529
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it