Over the last twenty years, significant progress has been made in designing and implementing Question Answering (QA) systems. However, addressing complex questions, the answers to which are spread across multiple documents, remains a challenging problem. Recent QA systems that are designed to handle complex questions work either on the basis of knowledge graphs, or utilise contem- porary neural models that are expensive to train, in terms of both computational resources and the volume of training data required. In this paper, we present LiCQA, an unsupervised question answer- ing model that works primarily on the basis of corpus evidence. We empirically compare the effectiveness and efficiency of LiCQA with two recently presented QA systems, which are based on different underlying principles. The results of our experiments show that LiCQA significantly outperforms these two state-of-the-art systems on benchmark data with noteworthy reduction in latency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Architecture of the LiCQA system.
Answer Type in ( Li and Roth, 2002 )
OntoNotes 5 Entity Type
HUMAN
PERSON
LOCATION
GPE, LOC, ORG
ENTITY
NORP, FAC, PRODUCT, EVENT
LANGUAGE, LAW, WORK_OF_ART
NUMERIC
DATE, TIME, PERCENT, MONEY
QUANTITY, ORDINAL, CARDINAL
Table 1. Mapping question / answer types to OntoNotes tags. Answer types in uppercase correspond to top-level categories, while lowercases refer to second-level sub-categories.
Collection
x1
x2
x3
Top10
100
0
0
Strata-1
60
30
10
Strata-2
50
40
10
Strata-3
50
30
20
Strata-4
40
40
20
Strata-5
40
30
30
Table 2. Values of x1 , x2 and x3 for the document collections used in this article.
Stages of pipeline
Evaluation metrics
Type classification
Sentence embedding
Scoring
Ranking
tMRR
tP@1
tHit@5
Traditional (SVM)
comb\mbox−score∗
0.412
0.282
0.633
max-score
comb\mbox−score+
0.406
0.275
0.626
comb\mbox−score∗
0.123
0.063
0.242
avg-maxscore
comb\mbox−score+
0.124
0.063
0.242
comb\mbox−score∗
0.387
0.253
0.620
Table 3. Performance of different stages of pipeline for CQ-W questions in terms of tie aware version of MRR, P@1 and Hit@5.
System
Metric
Top10
Strata-1
Strata-2
Strata-3
Strata-4
Strata-5
ShortestPaths
0.240
0.261
0.249
0.237
0.259
0.270
BFS
0.249
0.256
0.266
0.212
0.219
0.254
DrQA
MRR
0.226
0.237
0.257
0.256
0.215
0.248
QUEST
0.355
0.380
0.340
0.302
0.356
0.318
LiCQA
0.432 ∗ § †‡
0.424 ∗ § †‡
0.431 ∗ § †‡
0.420 ∗ § †‡
0.426 ∗ § †‡
0.416 ∗ § †‡
% improvement
21.6%
11.5%
26.7%
39%
19.6%
30.8%
Table 4. Performance comparison of baseline methods with LiCQA for CQ-W questions in terms of MRR, P@1 and Hit@5. A superscript ∗ , § , † and ‡ respectively indicate that LiCQA is statistically significant (t-test with p<0.05 ) with the ShortestPaths , BFS , DrQA and QUEST. The percentage improvement of LiCQA with the best performing baseline (QUEST) is presented in the last row of each group.
System
Metric
Top10
Strata-1
Strata-2
Strata-3
Strata-4
Strata-5
ShortestPaths
0.266
0.224
0.248
0.219
0.232
0.222
BFS
0.287
0.256
0.265
0.259
0.219
0.201
DrQA
MRR
0.355
0.330
0.356
0.369
0.365
0.380
QUEST
0.467
0.436
0.426
0.460
0.409
0.384
LiCQA
0.443 ∗ §
0.407 ∗ §
0.472 ∗ § †‡
0.476 ∗ § †‡
0.422 ∗ §
0.468 ∗ § †‡
% improvement
-5.1%
-6.6%
10.8%
3.4%
3.1%
21.8%
Table 5. Performance comparison of baseline methods with LiCQA for CQ-T questions in terms of MRR, P@1 and Hit@5. A superscript ∗ , § , † and ‡ respectively indicate that LiCQA is statistically significant (t-test with p<0.05 ) with the ShortestPaths , BFS , DrQA and QUEST. The percentage improvement of LiCQA with the best performing baseline (QUEST) is presented in the last row of each group.
CQ-W
CQ-T
System
Metric
Top10
Strata-1
Strata-2
Strata-3
Strata-4
Strata-5
Top10
Strata-1
Strata-2
Strata-3
Strata-4
Strata-5
DrQA
0.226
0.237
0.257
0.256
0.215
0.248
0.355
0.330
0.356
0.369
0.365
0.380
QUEST
tMRR
0.067
0.116
0.066
0.067
0.077
0.055
0.065
0.075
0.066
0.076
0.069
0.057
LiCQA
0.412 †‡
0.411 †‡
0.408 †‡
0.398 †‡
0.418 †‡
0.399 †‡
0.433 ‡
0.388 †‡
0.443 †‡
0.455 †‡
0.399 †‡
0.434 †‡
% improvement
82.3%
73.4%
58.7%
55.4%
94.4%
60.8%
21.9%
17.5%
24.4%
23.3%
9.31%
14.2%
DrQA
0.184
0.199
0.221
0.215
0.172
0.200
0.286
0.267
0.287
0.300
0.287
0.320
Table 7. Performance comparison of baseline methods with LiCQA for CQ-W and CQ-T questions in terms of tMRR , tP@1 and tHit@5 . A † and ‡ indicate that LiCQA is statistically significant (t-test with p<0.05 ) than DrQA and QUEST respectively. Percentage improvement of LiCQA with best performing baseline (DrQA) is presented in last row of each group.
Question Set
Question
Answer
LiCQA rank
QUEST rank
DrQA rank
CQ-W
What movie starred Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment?
The Sixth Sense
1
> 5
3
Who founded Apple and Pixar?
Steve Jobs
1
2
5
CQ-T
Which 2018 studio album is performed by Playboi Carti and features Nicki Minaj?
Die Lit
1
> 5
2
Which American professional golfer is married to Taylor Dowd Simpson and played for Wake Forest University?
Simpson
1
> 5
> 5
Table 8. Some example questions for which LiCQA has been able to retrieve the correct answer at rank 1 where as QUEST and DrQA have failed to retrieve the answers in the top rank.
Figure 2. Performance analysis of LiCQA , DrQA and QUEST on CQ-W and CQ-T question set on the Top10 dataset. First and second barplots (shown in ‘khaki’ and ‘olive’ color) denote QUEST result with normal and tie-aware metrics respectively. Similarly fourth and fifth barplots (shown in ‘skyblue’ and ‘steelblue’ color) denote LiCQA result with normal and tie-aware metrics respectively. Middle bar with teal color presents result of DrQA (as it retrieves a single entity per rank position).
Figure 3. A per-query performance analysis between LiCQA and QUEST on CQ-W question set for Top10 dataset. Bars above x-axis correspond to questions for which LiCQA has achieved better performance than QUEST.
Figure 4. A per-query performance analysis between LiCQA and QUEST on CQ-T question set for Top10 dataset. Bars above x-axis correspond to questions for which LiCQA has achieved better performance than QUEST.
System
Query set
Top10
Strata-1
Strata-2
Strata-3
Strata-4
Strata-5
LiCQA
CQ-W
13
15
17
14
16.5
14.3
QUEST
144
148
151
156
149
162
DrQA
120
131
119
124.6
128
129
speedup
9.23 ×
8.73 ×
7 ×
8.9 ×
7.75 ×
9.02 ×
LiCQA
CQ-T
14.5
16
18
15.8
18
17.6
QUEST
155
159
162
178
189.5
195.4
Table 9. Per query latency (in second) analysis of different QA models. Least latency highlighted in bold. Speedup row indicates the reduction in execution time than the baseline with the minimum latency (DrQA).
Question answering studies how AI systems interpret questions and produce accurate, evidence-grounded answers across text, dialogue, and multimodal data.
Recently, large language models (LLMs) have gained much attention for the emergence of human-comparable capabilities and huge potential. However, for open-domain implicit question-answering problems, LLMs may not be the ultimate solution due to the reasons of: 1) uncovered or out-of-date domain knowledge, 2) one-shot generation and hence restricted comprehensiveness. To this end, this work proposes a gradual knowledge excavation framework for open-domain complex question answering, where LLMs iteratively and actively acquire external information, and then reason based on acquired historical knowledge. Specifically, during each step of the solving process, the model selects an action to execute, such as querying external knowledge or performing a single logical reasoning step, to gradually progress toward a final answer. Our method can effectively leverage plug-and-play external knowledge and dynamically adjust the strategy for solving complex questions. Evaluated on the StrategyQA dataset, our method achieves 78.17% accuracy with less than 6% parameters of its competitors, setting new SOTA for ~10B-scale LLMs.
Chang Liu, Xiaoguang Li, Lifeng Shang +4
The University of Hong Kong · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab
Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown rapid progress in reading-based question answering (QA), where evidence is explicitly provided or can be trivially retrieved. In contrast, real-world questions are often not paired with accurate evidence documents. The useful evidence resides in massive data lakes, making search a prerequisite for answering. However, there is a lack of comprehensive benchmarks that require both searching and reasoning over large data lakes. To this end, we introduce LakeQA, a comprehensive benchmark for search-centric question answering over data lakes that jointly emphasizes searching and reasoning capabilities. LakeQA is built on a heterogeneous collection of approximately 9.5 TB of text resources from Wikipedia and open-source government data, spanning structured and unstructured data. To ensure task quality, each sample is annotated by at least one Ph.D.-level expert. Each task requires long-horizon multi-hop reasoning with implicit intermediate steps: agents need to discover the correct documents and then compose evidence across sources to produce the answer. Experimental results on seven frontier LLMs demonstrate that LakeQA is challenging. For instance, GPT-5.2 achieves only an exact-match score of 18.37% on LakeQA. Overall, LakeQA provides a realistic testbed for developing LLM agents that can both find and analyze data in modern data lakes.
Haonan Wang, Jiaxiang Liu, Yurong Liu +11
Columbia University · New York University · Barnard College
While modern question answering (QA) systems excel on clean, schema-aligned corpora, real-world knowledge is rarely so neatly packaged. Answering questions over enterprise and scientific data lakes requires systems to navigate heterogeneous, weakly structured collections of tables, passages, and linked metadata. Current benchmarks abstract away this noisy discovery process, failing to evaluate end-to-end performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce LakeQuest, a human-validated benchmark of 9,846 QA pairs designed to evaluate the end-to-end retrieve-and-synthesize pipeline over realistic data lakes. LakeQuest spans three diverse domains (AI/ML metadata, retail banking, and multimodal biomedical drug information) and pairs every question with exact, modality-aware evidence pointers. By isolating source discovery from cross-modal synthesis, LakeQuest exposes critical failure modes in modern QA systems. Our baseline evaluations, including standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and agentic tool-use methods, reveal that high-quality retrieval does not guarantee correct reasoning. Systems consistently struggle with relation chaining in metadata graphs, policy grounding in bank ledgers, and joint tabular QA in biomedical contexts, highlighting the need for robust discovery and faithful cross-file composition mechanisms in future agentic QA systems.