Unsupervised Alignment-based Iterative Evidence Retrieval for Multi-hop Question Answering

Evidence retrieval is a critical stage of question answering (QA), necessary not only to improve performance, but also to explain the decisions of the corresponding QA method. We introduce a simple, fast, and unsupervised iterative evidence retrieval method, which relies on three ideas: (a) an unsupervised alignment approach to soft-align questions and answers with justification sentences using only GloVe embeddings, (b) an iterative process that reformulates queries focusing on terms that are not covered by existing justifications, which (c) a stopping criterion that terminates retrieval when the terms in the given question and candidate answers are covered by the retrieved justifications. Despite its simplicity, our approach outperforms all the previous methods (including supervised methods) on the evidence selection task on two datasets: MultiRC and QASC. When these evidence sentences are fed into a RoBERTa answer classification component, we achieve state-of-the-art QA performance on these two datasets.Comment: Accepted at ACL 2020 as a long conference pape

Quick and (not so) Dirty: Unsupervised Selection of Justification Sentences for Multi-hop Question Answering

We propose an unsupervised strategy for the selection of justification sentences for multi-hop question answering (QA) that (a) maximizes the relevance of the selected sentences, (b) minimizes the overlap between the selected facts, and (c) maximizes the coverage of both question and answer. This unsupervised sentence selection method can be coupled with any supervised QA approach. We show that the sentences selected by our method improve the performance of a state-of-the-art supervised QA model on two multi-hop QA datasets: AI2's Reasoning Challenge (ARC) and Multi-Sentence Reading Comprehension (MultiRC). We obtain new state-of-the-art performance on both datasets among approaches that do not use external resources for training the QA system: 56.82% F1 on ARC (41.24% on Challenge and 64.49% on Easy) and 26.1% EM0 on MultiRC. Our justification sentences have higher quality than the justifications selected by a strong information retrieval baseline, e.g., by 5.4% F1 in MultiRC. We also show that our unsupervised selection of justification sentences is more stable across domains than a state-of-the-art supervised sentence selection method.Comment: Published at EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019 as long conference paper. Corrected the name reference for Speer et.al, 201

Constructing Datasets for Multi-hop Reading Comprehension Across Documents

Most Reading Comprehension methods limit themselves to queries which can be answered using a single sentence, paragraph, or document. Enabling models to combine disjoint pieces of textual evidence would extend the scope of machine comprehension methods, but currently there exist no resources to train and test this capability. We propose a novel task to encourage the development of models for text understanding across multiple documents and to investigate the limits of existing methods. In our task, a model learns to seek and combine evidence - effectively performing multi-hop (alias multi-step) inference. We devise a methodology to produce datasets for this task, given a collection of query-answer pairs and thematically linked documents. Two datasets from different domains are induced, and we identify potential pitfalls and devise circumvention strategies. We evaluate two previously proposed competitive models and find that one can integrate information across documents. However, both models struggle to select relevant information, as providing documents guaranteed to be relevant greatly improves their performance. While the models outperform several strong baselines, their best accuracy reaches 42.9% compared to human performance at 74.0% - leaving ample room for improvement.Comment: This paper directly corresponds to the TACL version (https://transacl.org/ojs/index.php/tacl/article/view/1325) apart from minor changes in wording, additional footnotes, and appendice