In August of 2024, 495 hackers generated evaluations in an open-ended bug bounty targeting the Open Language Model (OLMo) from The Allen Institute for AI. A vendor panel staffed by representatives of OLMo's safety program adjudicated changes to OLMo's documentation and awarded cash bounties to participants who successfully demonstrated a need for public disclosure clarifying the intent, capacities, and hazards of model deployment. This paper presents a collection of lessons learned, illustrative of flaw reporting best practices intended to reduce the likelihood of incidents and produce safer large language models (LLMs). These include best practices for safety reporting processes, their artifacts, and safety program staffing.

Shivalika Singh, Angelika Romanou, Clémentine Fourrier, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Jian Gang Ngui, Daniel Vila-Suero, Peerat Limkonchotiwat, Kelly Marchisio, Wei Qi Leong, Yosephine Susanto, Raymond Ng, Shayne Longpre, Sebastian Ruder, Wei-Yin Ko, Antoine Bosselut, Alice Oh, Andre Martins, Leshem Choshen, Daphne Ippolito, Enzo Ferrante, Marzieh Fadaee, Beyza Ermis, Sara Hooker. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

Progress in AI is driven largely by the scale and quality of training data. Despite this, there is a deficit of empirical analysis examining the attributes of well-established datasets beyond text. In this work we conduct the largest and first-of-its-kind longitudinal audit across modalities --- popular text, speech, and video datasets --- from their detailed sourcing trends and use restrictions to their geographical and linguistic representation. Our manual analysis covers nearly 4000 public datasets between 1990-2024, spanning 608 languages, 798 sources, 659 organizations, and 67 countries. We find that multimodal machine learning applications have overwhelmingly turned to web-crawled, synthetic, and social media platforms, such as YouTube, for their training sets, eclipsing all other sources since 2019. Secondly, tracing the chain of dataset derivations we find that while less than 33% of datasets are restrictively licensed, over 80% of the source content in widely-used text, speech, and video datasets, carry non-commercial restrictions. Finally, counter to the rising number of languages and geographies represented in public AI training datasets, our audit demonstrates measures of relative geographical and multilingual representation have failed to significantly improve their coverage since 2013. We believe the breadth of our audit enables us to empirically examine trends in data sourcing, restrictions, and Western-centricity at an ecosystem-level, and that visibility into these questions are essential to progress in responsible AI. As a contribution to ongoing improvements in dataset transparency and responsible use, we release our entire multimodal audit, allowing practitioners to trace data provenance across text, speech, and video.

Seungone Kim, Juyoung Suk, Ji Yong Cho, Shayne Longpre, Chaeeun Kim, Dongkeun Yoon, Guijin Son, Yejin Cho, Sheikh Shafayat, Jinheon Baek, Sue Hyun Park, Hyeonbin Hwang, Jinkyung Jo, Hyowon Cho, Haebin Shin, Seongyun Lee, Hanseok Oh, Noah Lee, Namgyu Ho, Se June Joo, Miyoung Ko, Yoonjoo Lee, Hyungjoo Chae, Jamin Shin, Joel Jang, Seonghyeon Ye, Bill Yuchen Lin, Sean Welleck, Graham Neubig, Moontae Lee, Kyungjae Lee, Minjoon Seo. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

Large language models (LLMs) are typically trained on enormous quantities of unlicensed text, a practice that has led to scrutiny due to possible intellectual property infringement and ethical concerns. Training LLMs on openly licensed text presents a first step towards addressing these issues, but prior data collection efforts have yielded datasets too small or low-quality to produce performant LLMs. To address this gap, we collect, curate, and release the Common Pile v0.1, an eight terabyte collection of openly licensed text designed for LLM pretraining. The Common Pile comprises content from 30 sources that span diverse domains including research papers, code, books, encyclopedias, educational materials, audio transcripts, and more. Crucially, we validate our efforts by training two 7 billion parameter LLMs on text from the Common Pile: Comma v0.1-1T and Comma v0.1-2T, trained on 1 and 2 trillion tokens respectively. Both models attain competitive performance to LLMs trained on unlicensed text with similar computational budgets, such as Llama 1 and 2 7B. In addition to releasing the Common Pile v0.1 itself, we also release the code used in its creation as well as the training mixture and checkpoints for the Comma v0.1 models.

We introduce FlexOLMo, a new class of language models (LMs) that supports (1) distributed training without data sharing, where different model parameters are independently trained on private datasets, and (2) data-flexible inference, where these parameters along with their associated data can be easily included or excluded from model inferences with no further training. FlexOLMo employs a mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture where each expert is trained independently on private datasets and later integrated through a new nonparametric routing without any joint training across datasets. FlexOLMo is trained on FLEXMIX, a corpus we curate comprising seven restricted sets, either real or realistic approximations, alongside publicly available datasets. We evaluate models with up to 37 billion parameters (20 billion active) on 31 diverse downstream tasks. We show that a general expert trained on public data can be effectively combined with independently trained experts from other data owners significantly benefiting from these restricted sets (an average 41% relative improvement) while allowing flexible opt-out at inference time (e.g., for users without appropriate licenses or permissions). Our approach also outperforms prior model merging methods by 10.1% on average and surpasses the standard MoE trained without data restrictions using the same training FLOPs. Altogether, FlexOLMo enables training on restricted data while keeping data local and supports fine-grained control of data access at inference.

Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion.Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we found one provider testing 27 private variants before making one model public at the second position on the leaderboard. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. The top two providers have individually received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data. With conservative estimates, we show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on ArenaHard, a test set from the arena distribution.Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field.

Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench-Verified uses insufficient test cases, while $\tau$-bench counts empty responses as successes. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents’ performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces performance overestimation by 33%.

Ahmet Üstün, Viraat Aryabumi, Zheng Yong, Wei-Yin Ko, Daniel D’souza, Gbemileke Onilude, Neel Bhandari, Shivalika Singh, Hui-Lee Ooi, Amr Kayid, Freddie Vargus, Phil Blunsom, Shayne Longpre, Niklas Muennighoff, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Sara Hooker. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

Foundation models are critical digital technologies with sweeping societal impact that necessitates transparency. To codify how foundation model developers should provide transparency about the development and deployment of their models, we propose Foundation Model Transparency Reports, drawing upon the transparency reporting practices in social media. While external documentation of societal harms prompted social media transparency reports, our objective is to institutionalize transparency reporting for foundation models while the industry is still nascent. To design our reports, we identify 6 design principles given the successes and shortcomings of social media transparency reporting. To further schematize our reports, we draw upon the 100 transparency indicators from the Foundation Model Transparency Index. Given these indicators, we measure the extent to which they overlap with the transparency requirements included in six prominent government policies (e.g. the EU AI Act, the US Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI). Well-designed transparency reports could reduce compliance costs, in part due to overlapping regulatory requirements across different jurisdictions. We encourage foundation model developers to regularly publish transparency reports, building upon recommendations from the G7 and the White House.

Seungone Kim, Juyoung Suk, Shayne Longpre, Bill Yuchen Lin, Jamin Shin, Sean Welleck, Graham Neubig, Moontae Lee, Kyungjae Lee, Minjoon Seo. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024.

Recently, GPT-4 has become the de facto evaluator for long-form text generated by large language models (LLMs). However, for practitioners and researchers with large and custom evaluation tasks, GPT-4 is unreliable due to its closed-source nature, uncontrolled versioning, and prohibitive costs. In this work, we propose PROMETHEUS a fully open-source LLM that is on par with GPT-4’s evaluation capabilities when the appropriate reference materials (reference answer, score rubric) are accompanied. For this purpose, we construct a new dataset – FEEDBACK COLLECTION – that consists of 1K fine-grained score rubrics, 20K instructions, and 100K natural language feedback generated by GPT-4. Using the FEEDBACK COLLECTION, we train PROMETHEUS, a 13B evaluation-specific LLM that can assess any given response based on novel and unseen score rubrics and reference materials provided by the user. Our dataset’s versatility and diversity make our model generalize to challenging real-world criteria, such as prioritizing conciseness, child-readability, or varying levels of formality. We show that PROMETHEUS shows a stronger correlation with GPT-4 evaluation compared to ChatGPT on seven evaluation benchmarks (Two Feedback Collection testsets, MT Bench, Vicuna Bench, Flask Eval, MT Bench Human Judgment, and HHH Alignment), showing the efficacy of our model and dataset design. During human evaluation with hand-crafted score rubrics, PROMETHEUS shows a Pearson correlation of 0.897 with human evaluators, which is on par with GPT-4-0613 (0.882), and greatly outperforms ChatGPT (0.392). Remarkably, when assessing the quality of the generated feedback, PROMETHEUS demonstrates a win rate of 58.62% when compared to GPT-4 evaluation and a win rate of 79.57% when compared to ChatGPT evaluation. Our findings suggests that by adding reference materials and training on GPT-4 feedback, we can obtain effective open-source evaluator LMs.

Finetuning large language models (LLMs) on instructions leads to vast performance improvements on natural language tasks. We apply instruction tuning using code, leveraging the natural structure of Git commits, which pair code changes with human instructions. We compile CommitPack: 4 terabytes of Git commits across 350 programming languages. We benchmark CommitPack against other natural and synthetic code instructions (xP3x, Self-Instruct, OASST) on the 16B parameter StarCoder model, and achieve state-of-the-art performance among models not trained on OpenAI outputs, on the HumanEval Python benchmark (46.2% pass@1). We further introduce HumanEvalPack, expanding the HumanEval benchmark to a total of 3 coding tasks (Code Repair, Code Explanation, Code Synthesis) across 6 languages (Python, JavaScript, Java, Go, C++, Rust). Our models, OctoCoder and OctoGeeX, achieve the best performance across HumanEvalPack among all permissive models, demonstrating CommitPack's benefits in generalizing to a wider set of languages and natural coding tasks. Code, models and data are freely available at https://github.com/bigcode-project/octopack.

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) is a neural architecture design that adds learnable parameters to Large Language Models (LLMs) without increasing computational complexity (FLOPs). Instruction tuning is a technique for training LLMs to follow instructions. We advocate combining these two approaches, as we find that MoE models benefit more from instruction tuning than dense models. In particular, we conduct empirical studies across three experimental setups: (i) Direct finetuning on individual downstream tasks devoid of instruction tuning; (ii) Instruction tuning followed by in-context few-shot or zero-shot generalization on downstream tasks; and (iii) Instruction tuning supplemented by further finetuning on individual downstream tasks. In the first scenario, MoE models overall underperform dense models of identical computational capacity. This narrative, however, dramatically changes with the introduction of instruction tuning (in the second and third scenarios), used independently or in conjunction with task-specific finetuning. Our most powerful model, FLAN-MoE-32B, surpasses the performance of Flan-PaLM-62B on four benchmark tasks, while using only a third of the FLOPs. The advancements embodied by FLAN-MoE inspire a reevaluation of the design principles of large-scale, high-performance language models in the framework of task-agnostic learning.

Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on *open* foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g., Llama 3, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g., greater customizability, poor monitoring) that mediate their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their *marginal risk*. Across several misuse vectors (e.g., cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks.

Independent evaluation and red teaming are critical for identifying the risks posed by generative AI systems. However, the terms of service and enforcement strategies used by prominent AI companies to deter model misuse have disincentives on good faith safety evaluations. This causes some researchers to fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. Although some companies offer researcher access programs, they are an inadequate substitute for independent research access, as they have limited community representation, receive inadequate funding, and lack independence from corporate incentives. We propose that major generative AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor, protecting public interest safety research and removing the threat of account suspensions or legal reprisal. These proposals emerged from our collective experience conducting safety, privacy, and trustworthiness research on generative AI systems, where norms and incentives could be better aligned with public interests, without exacerbating model misuse. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.

New capabilities in foundation models are owed in large part to massive, widely-sourced, and under-documented training data collections. Existing practices in data collection have led to challenges in tracing authenticity, verifying consent, preserving privacy, addressing representation and bias, respecting copyright, and overall developing ethical and trustworthy foundation models. In response, regulation is emphasizing the need for training data transparency to understand foundation models’ limitations. Based on a large-scale analysis of the foundation model training data landscape and existing solutions, we identify the missing infrastructure to facilitate responsible foundation model development practices. We examine the current shortcomings of common tools for tracing data authenticity, consent, and documentation, and outline how policymakers, developers, and data creators can facilitate responsible foundation model development by adopting universal data provenance standards.

The recent embrace of machine learning (ML) in the development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) creates serious risks to geopolitical stability and the free exchange of ideas in AI research. This topic has received comparatively little attention of late compared to risks stemming from superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but requires fewer assumptions about the course of technological development and is thus a nearer-future issue. ML is already enabling the substitution of AWS for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the upfront human cost, and thus political cost, of waging offensive war. In the case of peer adversaries, this increases the likelihood of "low intensity" conflicts which risk escalation to broader warfare. In the case of non-peer adversaries, it reduces the domestic blowback to wars of aggression. This effect can occur regardless of other ethical issues around the use of military AI such as the risk of civilian casualties, and does not require any superhuman AI capabilities. Further, the military value of AWS raises the specter of an AI-powered arms race and the misguided imposition of national security restrictions on AI research. Our goal in this paper is to raise awareness among the public and ML researchers on the near-future risks posed by full or near-full autonomy in military technology, and we provide regulatory suggestions to mitigate these risks. We call upon AI policy experts and the defense AI community in particular to embrace transparency and caution in their development and deployment of AWS to avoid the negative effects on global stability and AI research that we highlight here.

Shayne Longpre, Gregory Yauney, Emily Reif, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Barret Zoph, Denny Zhou, Jason Wei, Kevin Robinson, David Mimno, Daphne Ippolito. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems are built on massive swathes of public web data, assembled into corpora such as C4, RefinedWeb, and Dolma. To our knowledge, we conduct the first, large-scale, longitudinal audit of the consent protocols for the web domains underlying AI training corpora. Our audit of 14,000 web domains provides an expansive view of crawlable web data and how codified data use preferences are changing over time. We observe a proliferation of AI-specific clauses to limit use, acute differences in restrictions on AI developers, as well as general inconsistencies between websites' expressed intentions in their Terms of Service and their robots.txt. We diagnose these as symptoms of ineffective web protocols, not designed to cope with the widespread re-purposing of the internet for AI. Our longitudinal analyses show that in a single year (2023-2024) there has been a rapid crescendo of data restrictions from web sources, rendering ~5\%+ of all tokens in C4, or 28%+ of the most actively maintained, critical sources in C4, fully restricted from use. For Terms of Service crawling restrictions, a full 45% of C4 is now restricted. If respected or enforced, these restrictions are rapidly biasing the diversity, freshness, and scaling laws for general-purpose AI systems. We hope to illustrate the emerging crises in data consent, for both developers and creators. The foreclosure of much of the open web will impact not only commercial AI, but also non-commercial AI and academic research.

As new machine learning methods demand larger training datasets, researchers and developers face significant challenges in dataset management. Although ethics reviews, documentation, and checklists have been established, it remains uncertain whether consistent dataset management practices exist across the community. This lack of a comprehensive overview hinders our ability to diagnose and address fundamental tensions and ethical issues related to managing large datasets. We present a systematic review of datasets published at the NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks track, focusing on four key aspects: provenance, distribution, ethical disclosure, and licensing. Our findings reveal that dataset provenance is often unclear due to ambiguous filtering and curation processes. Additionally, a variety of sites are used for dataset hosting, but only a few offer structured metadata and version control. These inconsistencies underscore the urgent need for standardized data infrastructures for the publication and management of datasets.

Finetuning language models on a collection of datasets phrased as instructions has been shown to improve model performance and generalization to unseen tasks. In this paper we explore instruction finetuning with a particular focus on (1) scaling the number of tasks, (2) scaling the model size, and (3) finetuning on chain-of-thought data. We find that instruction finetuning with the above aspects dramatically improves performance on a variety of model classes (PaLM, T5, U-PaLM), prompting setups (zero-shot, few-shot, CoT), and evaluation benchmarks (MMLU, BBH, TyDiQA, MGSM, open-ended generation, RealToxicityPrompts). For instance, Flan-PaLM 540B instruction-finetuned on 1.8K tasks outperforms PaLM 540B by a large margin (+9.4% on average). Flan-PaLM 540B achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks (at time of release), such as 75.2% on five-shot MMLU. We also publicly release Flan-T5 checkpoints,1 which achieve strong few-shot performance even compared to much larger models, such as PaLM 62B. Overall, instruction finetuning is a general method for improving the performance and usability of pretrained language models.

We study the design decision of publicly available instruction tuning methods, by reproducing and breaking down the development of Flan 2022 (Chung et al., 2022). Through careful ablation studies on the Flan Collection of tasks and methods, we tease apart the effect of design decisions which enable Flan-T5 to outperform prior work by 3-17% across evaluation settings. We find task balancing and enrichment techniques are overlooked but critical to effective instruction tuning, and in particular, training with mixed prompt settings (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought) actually yields equivalent or stronger (2%) performance in all settings. In further experiments we show Flan-T5 requires less finetuning to converge higher and faster than T5 on single downstream tasks -- motivating instruction-tuned models as more computationally-efficient starting checkpoints for new tasks. Finally, to accelerate research on instruction tuning, we make the Flan 2022 collection of datasets, templates, and methods publicly available.

Quantization, knowledge distillation, and magnitude pruning are among the most popular methods for neural network compression in NLP. Independently, these methods reduce model size and can accelerate inference, but their relative benefit and combinatorial interactions have not been rigorously studied. For each of the eight possible subsets of these techniques, we compare accuracy vs. model size tradeoffs across six BERT architecture sizes and eight GLUE tasks. We find that quantization and distillation consistently provide greater benefit than pruning. Surprisingly, except for the pair of pruning and quantization, using multiple methods together rarely yields diminishing returns. Instead, we observe complementary and super-multiplicative reductions to model size. Our work quantitatively demonstrates that combining compression methods can synergistically reduce model size, and that practitioners should prioritize (1) quantization, (2) knowledge distillation, and (3) pruning to maximize accuracy vs. model size tradeoffs.

As language models grow ever larger, the need for large-scale high-quality text datasets has never been more pressing, especially in multilingual settings. The BigScience workshop, a 1-year international and multidisciplinary initiative, was formed with the goal of researching and training large language models as a values-driven undertaking, putting issues of ethics, harm, and governance in the foreground. This paper documents the data creation and curation efforts undertaken by BigScience to assemble the Responsible Open-science Open-collaboration Text Sources (ROOTS) corpus, a 1.6TB dataset spanning 59 languages that was used to train the 176-billion-parameter BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual (BLOOM) language model. We further release a large initial subset of the corpus and analyses thereof, and hope to empower large-scale monolingual and multilingual modeling projects with both the data and the processing tools, as well as stimulate research around this large multilingual corpus.

Anthony Chen, Pallavi Gudipati, Shayne Longpre, Xiao Ling, Sameer Singh. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021.

Knowledge-dependent tasks typically use two sources of knowledge: parametric, learned at training time, and contextual, given as a passage at inference time.To understand how models use these sources together, we formalize the problem of knowledge conflicts, where the contextual information contradicts the learned information.Analyzing the behaviour of popular models, we measure their over-reliance on memorized information (the cause of hallucinations), and uncover important factors that exacerbate this behaviour.Lastly, we propose a simple method to mitigate over-reliance on parametric knowledge which minimizes hallucination and improves out-of-distribution generalization by 4% -7%.Our findings demonstrate the importance for practitioners to evaluate model tendency to hallucinate rather than read, and show that our mitigation strategy encourages generalization to evolving information (i.e., time-dependent queries).To encourage these practices, we have released our framework for generating knowledge conflicts.1

Raviteja Anantha, Svitlana Vakulenko, Zhucheng Tu, Shayne Longpre, Stephen Pulman, Srinivas Chappidi. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2021.

Recent work (Feng et al., 2018) establishes the presence of short, uninterpretable input fragments that yield high confidence and accuracy in neural models.We refer to these as Minimal Prediction Preserving Inputs (MPPIs).In the context of question answering, we investigate competing hypotheses for the existence of MPPIs, including poor posterior calibration of neural models, lack of pretraining, and "dataset bias" (where a model learns to attend to spurious, non-generalizable cues in the training data).We discover a perplexing invariance of MPPIs to random training seed, model architecture, pretraining, and training domain.MPPIs demonstrate remarkable transferability across domains -achieving significantly higher performance than comparably short queries.Additionally, penalizing over-confidence on MPPIs fails to improve either generalization or adversarial robustness.These results suggest the interpretability of MPPIs is insufficient to characterize generalization capacity of these models.We hope this focused investigation encourages more systematic analysis of model behavior outside of the human interpretable distribution of examples.* equal contribution 1 For question answering we construct MPPIs by only removing words from the query.Modifying the context paragraph is poorly defined in MPPI generation as it perturbs the output space, rendering an answer impossible or trivial.

Conversational question answering (QA) requires the ability to correctly interpret a question in the context of previous conversation turns. We address the conversational QA task by decomposing it into question rewriting and question answering subtasks. The question rewriting (QR) subtask is specifically designed to reformulate ambiguous questions, which depend on the conversational context, into unambiguous questions that can be correctly interpreted outside of the conversational context. We introduce a conversational QA architecture that sets the new state of the art on the TREC CAsT 2019 passage retrieval dataset. Moreover, we show that the same QR model improves QA performance on the QuAC dataset with respect to answer span extraction, which is the next step in QA after passage retrieval. Our evaluation results indicate that the QR model we proposed achieves near human-level performance on both datasets and the gap in performance on the end-to-end conversational QA task is attributed mostly to the errors in QA.

Abstract Progress in cross-lingual modeling depends on challenging, realistic, and diverse evaluation sets. We introduce Multilingual Knowledge Questions and Answers (MKQA), an open- domain question answering evaluation set comprising 10k question-answer pairs aligned across 26 typologically diverse languages (260k question-answer pairs in total). Answers are based on heavily curated, language- independent data representation, making results comparable across languages and independent of language-specific passages. With 26 languages, this dataset supplies the widest range of languages to-date for evaluating question answering. We benchmark a variety of state- of-the-art methods and baselines for generative and extractive question answering, trained on Natural Questions, in zero shot and translation settings. Results indicate this dataset is challenging even in English, but especially in low-resource languages.1