Document · Research paper

BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions

Work-level record. Its arXiv versions and any conference or journal version are listed as sources, each with its own date. A citation to the work does not identify which version the citing author read.

Issued by

No issuing record yet. A missing record is a gap in coverage.

Authors credited

Kenton Lee · Kristina Toutanova · Ming-Wei Chang

Dates

Published 2019 authorship evidence authorship evidence authorship evidence

Exact source

BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions arXiv · published 2019-05-24 · arXiv abstract page, retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 40ef5af1529d7960723d565a501ffb2349fe3a228e06c1170e8565921b839484). Submission history as arXiv records it (UTC): v1 24 May 2019. The page serves the latest version; each version is a separate expression, and only the one a record names was read.
BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions Crossref · published 2019 · Crossref record of the conference version: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pp. 2924-2936 (DOI 10.18653/v1/n19-1300), retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28. The date is the publisher-deposited date, kept at year precision; it was not checked against the issue.
BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions arXiv · published 2019-05-24 · arXiv:1905.10044v1, submitted 24 May 2019 (UTC). Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 b96c0d7cd3fbb3f431ec0d5bf10d4a9d58eaf7b1d90a5c223bc777e02f704283). The author list is the byline as printed on the first page.

Appears in

No collection holds a record about this document yet.

Versions

No other versions of this document are recorded. The evidence applies to the source version listed above. Other versions, such as a preprint, working paper or journal publication, are not identified or substituted.

Issue and authorship records

Documentary relations

Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.

Cited by · 5

Recorded documents that explicitly reference this one. A citation to a work does not identify which version was read.

Not recorded for this document: cites · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.

What the document says it adds

The document’s own description of its contribution, quoted from the version each row names. A claim to be the first is the document’s claim; Selekoa does not assess it.

In its own wordsThe paper presents BoolQ, a reading comprehension dataset of naturally occurring yes/no questions, which the authors report are unexpectedly challenging.“We build a reading comprehension dataset, BoolQ, of such questions, and show that they are unexpectedly challenging.” arXiv v1, PDF p. 1, abstract2019-05-24 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗