CLMar 14, 2022

Choose Your QA Model Wisely: A Systematic Study of Generative and Extractive Readers for Question Answering

arXiv:2203.07522v1644 citationsh-index: 30
Originality Synthesis-oriented
AI Analysis

It provides a comparative analysis to guide model selection and research in QA, but it is incremental as it focuses on benchmarking existing methods.

This paper systematically compares extractive and generative readers for question answering, finding that generative readers excel in long contexts, extractive readers perform better in short contexts and generalize better out-of-domain, and encoder-decoder models like T5 can outperform encoder-only models as extractive readers.

While both extractive and generative readers have been successfully applied to the Question Answering (QA) task, little attention has been paid toward the systematic comparison of them. Characterizing the strengths and weaknesses of the two readers is crucial not only for making a more informed reader selection in practice but also for developing a deeper understanding to foster further research on improving readers in a principled manner. Motivated by this goal, we make the first attempt to systematically study the comparison of extractive and generative readers for question answering. To be aligned with the state-of-the-art, we explore nine transformer-based large pre-trained language models (PrLMs) as backbone architectures. Furthermore, we organize our findings under two main categories: (1) keeping the architecture invariant, and (2) varying the underlying PrLMs. Among several interesting findings, it is important to highlight that (1) the generative readers perform better in long context QA, (2) the extractive readers perform better in short context while also showing better out-of-domain generalization, and (3) the encoder of encoder-decoder PrLMs (e.g., T5) turns out to be a strong extractive reader and outperforms the standard choice of encoder-only PrLMs (e.g., RoBERTa). We also study the effect of multi-task learning on the two types of readers varying the underlying PrLMs and perform qualitative and quantitative diagnosis to provide further insights into future directions in modeling better readers.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes