Paper detail

R3: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Reasoning Processes

Existing question answering systems can only predict answers without explicit reasoning processes, which hinder their explainability and make us overestimate their ability of understanding and reasoning over natural language. In this work, we propose a novel task of reading comprehension, in which a model is required to provide final answers and reasoning processes. To this end, we introduce a formalism for reasoning over unstructured text, namely Text Reasoning Meaning Representation (TRMR). TRMR consists of three phrases, which is expressive enough to characterize the reasoning process to answer reading comprehension questions. We develop an annotation platform to facilitate TRMR's annotation, and release the R3 dataset, a \textbf{R}eading comprehension benchmark \textbf{R}equiring \textbf{R}easoning processes. R3 contains over 60K pairs of question-answer pairs and their TRMRs. Our dataset is available at: \url{http://anonymous}.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.