Building compositional explanations requires models to combine two or more facts that, together, describe why the answer to a question is correct. Typically, these "multi-hop" explanations are evaluated relative to one (or a small number of) gold explanations. In this work, we show these evaluations substantially underestimate model performance, both in terms of the relevance of included facts, as well as the completeness of model-generated explanations, because models regularly discover and produce valid explanations that are different than gold explanations. To address this, we construct a large corpus of 126k domain-expert (science teacher) relevance ratings that augment a corpus of explanations to standardized science exam questions, discovering 80k additional relevant facts not rated as gold. We build three strong models based on different methodologies (generation, ranking, and schemas), and empirically show that while expert-augmented ratings provide better estimates of explanation quality, both original (gold) and expert-augmented automatic evaluations still substantially underestimate performance by up to 36% when compared with full manual expert judgements, with different models being disproportionately affected. This poses a significant methodological challenge to accurately evaluating explanations produced by compositional reasoning models.

Our goal, in the context of open-domain textual question-answering (QA), is to explain answers by not just listing supporting textual evidence ("rationales"), but also showing how such evidence leads to the answer in a systematic way. If this could be done, new opportunities for understanding and debugging the system's reasoning would become possible. Our approach is to generate explanations in the form of entailment trees, namely a tree of entailment steps from facts that are known, through intermediate conclusions, to the final answer. To train a model with this skill, we created ENTAILMENTBANK, the first dataset to contain multistep entailment trees. At each node in the tree (typically) two or more facts compose together to produce a new conclusion. Given a hypothesis (question + answer), we define three increasingly difficult explanation tasks: generate a valid entailment tree given (a) all relevant sentences (the leaves of the gold entailment tree), (b) all relevant and some irrelevant sentences, or (c) a corpus. We show that a strong language model only partially solves these tasks, and identify several new directions to improve performance. This work is significant as it provides a new type of dataset (multistep entailments) and baselines, offering a new avenue for the community to generate richer, more systematic explanations.

Prior work has demonstrated that question classification (QC), recognizing the problem domain of a question, can help answer it more accurately. However, developing strong QC algorithms has been hindered by the limited size and complexity of annotated data available. To address this, we present the largest challenge dataset for QC, containing 7,787 science exam questions paired with detailed classification labels from a fine-grained hierarchical taxonomy of 406 problem domains. We then show that a BERT-based model trained on this dataset achieves a large (+0.12 MAP) gain compared with previous methods, while also achieving state-of-the-art performance on benchmark open-domain and biomedical QC datasets. Finally, we show that using this model's predictions of question topic significantly improves the accuracy of a question answering system by +1.7% P@1, with substantial future gains possible as QC performance improves.