Papers › Selective Question Answering under Domain Shift

Selective Question Answering under Domain Shift

16 Jun 2020ACL 2020 6arXiv:2006.09462archive 2025-07-28

Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, Percy Liang

To avoid giving wrong answers, question answering (QA) models need to know when to abstain from answering. Moreover, users often ask questions that diverge from the model's training data, making errors more likely and thus abstention more critical. In this work, we propose the setting of selective question answering under domain shift, in which a QA model is tested on a mixture of in-domain and out-of-domain data, and must answer (i.e., not abstain on) as many questions as possible while maintaining high accuracy. Abstention policies based solely on the model's softmax probabilities fare poorly, since models are overconfident on out-of-domain inputs. Instead, we train a calibrator to identify inputs on which the QA model errs, and abstain when it predicts an error is likely. Crucially, the calibrator benefits from observing the model's behavior on out-of-domain data, even if from a different domain than the test data. We combine this method with a SQuAD-trained QA model and evaluate on mixtures of SQuAD and five other QA datasets. Our method answers 56% of questions while maintaining 80% accuracy; in contrast, directly using the model's probabilities only answers 48% at 80% accuracy.

PaperPDFConference PDFCode

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

Question Answering

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Softmax

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