Papers › POQue: Asking Participant-specific Outcome Questions for a Deeper Understanding of...

POQue: Asking Participant-specific Outcome Questions for a Deeper Understanding of Complex Events

5 Dec 2022arXiv:2212.02629archive 2025-07-28

Sai Vallurupalli, Sayontan Ghosh, Katrin Erk, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Francis Ferraro

Knowledge about outcomes is critical for complex event understanding but is hard to acquire. We show that by pre-identifying a participant in a complex event, crowd workers are able to (1) infer the collective impact of salient events that make up the situation, (2) annotate the volitional engagement of participants in causing the situation, and (3) ground the outcome of the situation in state changes of the participants. By creating a multi-step interface and a careful quality control strategy, we collect a high quality annotated dataset of 8K short newswire narratives and ROCStories with high inter-annotator agreement (0.74-0.96 weighted Fleiss Kappa). Our dataset, POQue (Participant Outcome Questions), enables the exploration and development of models that address multiple aspects of semantic understanding. Experimentally, we show that current language models lag behind human performance in subtle ways through our task formulations that target abstract and specific comprehension of a complex event, its outcome, and a participant's influence over the event culmination.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

saiumbc/poque officialmentioned in paper report

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.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

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