Papers › QAConv: Question Answering on Informative Conversations

QAConv: Question Answering on Informative Conversations

14 May 2021ACL 2022 5arXiv:2105.06912archive 2025-07-28

Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Wenhao Liu, Pascale Fung, Caiming Xiong

This paper introduces QAConv, a new question answering (QA) dataset that uses conversations as a knowledge source. We focus on informative conversations, including business emails, panel discussions, and work channels. Unlike open-domain and task-oriented dialogues, these conversations are usually long, complex, asynchronous, and involve strong domain knowledge. In total, we collect 34,608 QA pairs from 10,259 selected conversations with both human-written and machine-generated questions. We use a question generator and a dialogue summarizer as auxiliary tools to collect and recommend questions. The dataset has two testing scenarios: chunk mode and full mode, depending on whether the grounded partial conversation is provided or retrieved. Experimental results show that state-of-the-art pretrained QA systems have limited zero-shot performance and tend to predict our questions as unanswerable. Our dataset provides a new training and evaluation testbed to facilitate QA on conversations research.

PaperPDFConference PDFCode

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

Code

salesforce/QAConv officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch 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.

Tasks

Question Answering

Datasets

Introduced by this paper, per the archive.

QAConv

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