Question answering methods are well-known for leveraging data bias, such as the language prior in visual question answering and the position bias in machine reading comprehension (extractive question answering). Current debiasing methods often come at the cost of significant in-distribution performance to achieve favorable out-of-distribution generalizability, while non-debiasing methods sacrifice a considerable amount of out-of-distribution performance in order to obtain high in-distribution performance. Therefore, it is challenging for them to deal with the complicated changing real-world situations. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective novel loss function with adaptive loose optimization, which seeks to make the best of both worlds for question answering. Our main technical contribution is to reduce the loss adaptively according to the ratio between the previous and current optimization state on mini-batch training data. This loose optimization can be used to prevent non-debiasing methods from overlearning data bias while enabling debiasing methods to maintain slight bias learning. Experiments on the visual question answering datasets, including VQA v2, VQA-CP v1, VQA-CP v2, GQA-OOD, and the extractive question answering dataset SQuAD demonstrate that our approach enables QA methods to obtain state-of-the-art in- and out-of-distribution performance in most cases. The source code has been released publicly in \url{https://github.com/reml-group/ALO}.

Disagreement in natural language annotation has mostly been studied from a perspective of biases introduced by the annotators and the annotation frameworks. Here, we propose to analyze another source of bias: task design bias, which has a particularly strong impact on crowdsourced linguistic annotations where natural language is used to elicit the interpretation of laymen annotators. For this purpose we look at implicit discourse relation annotation, a task that has repeatedly been shown to be difficult due to the relations' ambiguity. We compare the annotations of 1,200 discourse relations obtained using two distinct annotation tasks and quantify the biases of both methods across four different domains. Both methods are natural language annotation tasks designed for crowdsourcing. We show that the task design can push annotators towards certain relations and that some discourse relations senses can be better elicited with one or the other annotation approach. We also conclude that this type of bias should be taken into account when training and testing models.