Existing machine reading comprehension models are reported to be brittle for adversarially perturbed questions when optimizing only for accuracy, which led to the creation of new reading comprehension benchmarks, such as SQuAD 2.0 which contains such type of questions. However, despite the super-human accuracy of existing models on such datasets, it is still unclear how the model predicts the answerability of the question, potentially due to the absence of a shared annotation for the explanation. To address such absence, we release SQuAD2-CR dataset, which contains annotations on unanswerable questions from the SQuAD 2.0 dataset, to enable an explanatory analysis of the model prediction. Specifically, we annotate (1) explanation on why the most plausible answer span cannot be the answer and (2) which part of the question causes unanswerability. We share intuitions and experimental results that how this dataset can be used to analyze and improve the interpretability of existing reading comprehension model behavior.

Question answering (QA) extracting answers from text to the given question in natural language, has been actively studied and existing models have shown a promise of outperforming human performance when trained and evaluated with SQuAD dataset. However, such performance may not be replicated in the actual setting, for which we need to diagnose the cause, which is non-trivial due to the complexity of model. We thus propose a web-based UI that provides how each model contributes to QA performances, by integrating visualization and analysis tools for model explanation. We expect this framework can help QA model researchers to refine and improve their models.

Question answering from tables (TableQA) extracting answers from tables from the question given in natural language, has been actively studied. Existing models have been trained and evaluated mostly with respect to answer accuracy using public benchmark datasets such as WikiSQL. The goal of this demonstration is to show a debugging tool for such models, explaining answers to humans, known as explanatory debugging. Our key distinction is making it "actionable" to allow users to directly correct models upon explanation. Specifically, our tool surfaces annotation and models errors for users to correct, and provides actionable insights.