Papers › BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions
BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions
Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, Kristina Toutanova
In this paper we study yes/no questions that are naturally occurring --- meaning that they are generated in unprompted and unconstrained settings. We build a reading comprehension dataset, BoolQ, of such questions, and show that they are unexpectedly challenging. They often query for complex, non-factoid information, and require difficult entailment-like inference to solve. We also explore the effectiveness of a range of transfer learning baselines. We find that transferring from entailment data is more effective than transferring from paraphrase or extractive QA data, and that it, surprisingly, continues to be very beneficial even when starting from massive pre-trained language models such as BERT. Our best method trains BERT on MultiNLI and then re-trains it on our train set. It achieves 80.4% accuracy compared to 90% accuracy of human annotators (and 62% majority-baseline), leaving a significant gap for future work.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Datasets
Introduced by this paper, per the archive.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question Answering | BoolQ | BERT-MultiNLI 340M (fine-tuned) | Accuracy | 80.4 | #27 of 65 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Question Answering | BoolQ | BiDAF-MultiNLI (fine-tuned) | Accuracy | 75.57 | #35 of 65 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Question Answering | BoolQ | GPT-1 117M (fine-tuned) | Accuracy | 72.87 | #39 of 65 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Question Answering | BoolQ | BiDAF + ELMo (fine-tuned) | Accuracy | 71.41 | #41 of 65 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Question Answering | BoolQ | Majority baseline | Accuracy | 62.17 | #51 of 65 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections