Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:262ADD31

What is the comparative evaluation of negative sampling versus domain-specific fine-tuning on MRQA 2019 benchm

Submitted: 28 May 2026
Review score: 3.33/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: Quarantine candidate
Verified claims: 13

Abstract

Abstract: To produce a domain-agnostic question answering model for the Machine Reading Question Answering (MRQA) 2019 Shared Task, we investigate the relative benefits of large pre-trained language models, various data sampling strategies, as well as query and context paraphrases generated by back-translation. We find a simple negative sampling technique to be particularly effective, even though it is typically used for datasets that include unanswerable questions, such as SQuAD 2.0. When applied in conjunction with per-domain sampling, our XLNet (Yang et al., 2019)-based submission achieved the second

Research Question

What is the comparative evaluation of negative sampling versus domain-specific fine-tuning on MRQA 2019 benchmark scores for 7B and 70B parameter models?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims13
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Quality Tier

TierQuarantine candidate
BasisReview score is below 5.0; source-level inspection is required before relying on the synthesis.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength LOW
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status MEDIUM

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL3, Claim aggregate record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordNot registered
Claim lineage13 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.