Papers › World Knowledge in Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension
World Knowledge in Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension
Adian Liusie, Vatsal Raina, Mark Gales
Recently it has been shown that without any access to the contextual passage, multiple choice reading comprehension (MCRC) systems are able to answer questions significantly better than random on average. These systems use their accumulated "world knowledge" to directly answer questions, rather than using information from the passage. This paper examines the possibility of exploiting this observation as a tool for test designers to ensure that the use of "world knowledge" is acceptable for a particular set of questions. We propose information-theory based metrics that enable the level of "world knowledge" exploited by systems to be assessed. Two metrics are described: the expected number of options, which measures whether a passage-free system can identify the answer a question using world knowledge; and the contextual mutual information, which measures the importance of context for a given question. We demonstrate that questions with low expected number of options, and hence answerable by the shortcut system, are often similarly answerable by humans without context. This highlights that the general knowledge 'shortcuts' could be equally used by exam candidates, and that our proposed metrics may be helpful for future test designers to monitor the quality of questions.
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
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
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