BIBREF0 propose a reinforcement learning framework for question answering, called active question answering (ActiveQA), that aims to improve answering by systematically perturbing input questions (cf. BIBREF1 ). Figure 1 depicts the generic agent-environment framework. The agent (AQA) interacts with the environment (E) in order to answer a question ( $q_0$ ). The environment includes a question answering system (Q&A), and emits observations and rewards. A state $s_t$ at time $t$ is the sequence of observations and previous actions generated starting from $q_0$ : $s_t=x_0,u_0,x_1,\ldots ,u_{t-1},x_t$ , where $x_i$ includes the question asked ( $q_{i}$ ), the corresponding answer returned by the QA system ( $a_i$ ), and possibly additional information such as features or auxiliary tasks. The agent includes an action scoring component (U), which produced and action $u_t$ by deciding whether to submit a new question to the environment or to return a final answer. Formally, $u_t\in \mathcal {Q}\cup \mathcal {A}$ , where $s_t$0 is the set of all possible questions, and $s_t$1 is the set of all possible answers. The agent relies on a question reformulation system (QR), that provides candidate follow up questions, and on an answer ranking system (AR), which scores the answers contained in $s_t$2 . Each answer returned is assigned a reward. The objective is to maximize the expected reward over a set of questions. BIBREF0 present a simplified version of this system with three core components: a question reformulator, an off-the-shelf black box QA system, and a candidate answer selection model. The question reformulator is trained with policy gradient BIBREF2 to optimize the F1 score of the answers returned by the QA system to the question reformulations in place of the original question. The reformulator is implemented as a sequence-to-sequence model of the kind used for machine translation BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 . When generating question reformulations, the action-space is equal to the size of the vocabulary, typically $16k$ sentence pieces. Due to this large number of actions we warm start the reformulation policy with a monolingual sequence-to-sequence model that performs generic paraphrasing. This model is trained using the zero-shot translation technique BIBREF5 on a large multilingual parallel corpus BIBREF6 , followed by regular supervised learning on a smaller monolingual corpus of questions BIBREF7 .The reformulation and selection models form a trainable agent that seeks the best answers from the QA system. The reformulator proposes $N$ versions $q_i$ of the input question $q_0$ and passes them to the environment, which provides $N$ corresponding answers, $a_i$ . The selection model scores each triple $(q_0,q_i,a_i)$ and returns the top-scoring candidate.Crucially, the agent may only query the environment with natural language questions. Thus, ActiveQA involves a machine-machine communication process inspired by the human-machine communication that takes place when users interact with digital services during information seeking tasks. For example, while searching for information on a search engine users tend to adopt a keyword-like `queryese' style of questioning. The AQA agent proves effective at reformulating questions on SearchQA BIBREF8 , a large dataset of complex questions from the Jeopardy! game. For this task BiDAF is chosen for the environment BIBREF9 , a deep network built for QA which has produced state-of-the-art results. Compared to a QA system that forms the environment using only the original questions, AQA outperforms this baseline by a wide margin, 11.4% absolute F1, thereby reducing the gap between machine (BiDAF) and human performance by 66%.Here we perform a qualitative analysis of this communication process to better understand what kind of language the agent has learned. We find that while optimizing its reformulations to adapt to the language of the QA system, AQA diverges from well structured language in favour of less fluent, but more effective, classic information retrieval (IR) query operations. These include term re-weighting (tf-idf), expansion and morphological simplification/stemming. We hypothesize that the explanation of this behaviour is that current machine comprehension tasks primarily require ranking of short textual snippets, thus incentivizing relevance more than deep language understanding.We analyze input questions and reformulations on the $12k$ example development partition of the SearchQA dataset. Our goal is to gain insights on how the agent's language evolves during training via policy gradient. It is important to note that in the SearchQA dataset the original Jeopardy! clues have been preprocessed by lower-casing and stop word removal. The resulting preprocessed clues that form the sources (inputs) for the sequence-to-sequence reformulation model resemble more keyword-based search queries than grammatical questions. For example, the clue Gandhi was deeply influenced by this count who wrote "War and Peace" is simplified to gandhi deeply influenced count wrote war peace.Figure 2 summarizes statistics of the questions and rewrites which may shed some light on how the language changes. The (preprocessed) SearchQA questions contain 9.6 words on average. They contain few repeated terms, computed as the mean term frequency (TF) per question. The average is 1.03, but for most of the queries TF is 1.0, i.e. no repetitions. We also compute the median document frequency (DF) per query, where a document is the context from which the answer is selected. DF gives a measure of how informative the question terms are.We first consider the top hypothesis generated by the pre-trained NMT reformulation system, before reinforcement learning (Base-NMT). This system is trained with full supervision, using a large multilingual and a small monolingual dataset. The Base-NMT rewrites differ greatly from their sources. They are shorter, 6.3 words on average, and have even fewer repeated terms (1.01). Interestingly, these reformulations are mostly syntactically well-formed questions. For example, the clue above becomes Who influenced count wrote war?. Base-NMT improves structural language quality by properly reinserting dropped function words and wh-phrases. We also verified the increased fluency by using a large language model and found that the Base-NMT rewrites are 50% more likely than the original questions. The bottom right hand plot in Figure 2 summarizes the language model distributions (LM WordLogP). The plot shows the average per-token language model negative log probabilities; a lower score indicates greater fluency. Although the distributions overlap to a great extent due to the large variance across questions, the differences in means are significant.While more fluent, the Base-NMT rewrites involve rarer terms, as indicated by the decrease in DF. This is probably due to a domain mismatch between SearchQA and the NMT training corpus.We next consider the top hypothesis generated by the AQA question reformulator (AQA-QR) after the policy gradient training. The AQA-QR rewrites are those whose corresponding answers are evaluated as AQA Top Hyp. in BIBREF0 . Note, these single rewrites alone outperform the original SearchQA queries by a small margin (+2% on test). We analyze the top hypothesis instead of the final output of the full AQA agent to avoid confounding effects from the answer selection step. These rewrites look different from both the Base-NMT and the SearchQA ones. For the example above AQA-QR's top hypothesis is What is name gandhi gandhi influence wrote peace peace?. Surprisingly, 99.8% start with the prefix What is name. The second most frequent is What country is (81 times), followed by What is is (70) and What state (14). This is puzzling as it happens only for 9 Base-NMT rewrites, and never in the original SearchQA questions. We speculate it might be related to the fact that virtually all answers involve names, of named entities (Micronesia) or generic concepts (pizza). AQA-QR's rewrites are visibly less fluent than both the SearchQA and the Base-MT counterparts. In terms of language model probability they are less likely than both SearchQA and Base-NMT. However, they have more repeated terms (1.2 average TF), are significantly longer (11.9) than the Base-NMT initialization and contain more informative context terms (lower DF) than SearchQA questions.Additionally, AQA-QR's reformulations contain morphological variants in 12.5% of cases. The number of questions that contain multiple tokens with the same stem doubles from SearchQA to AQA-QR. Singular forms are preferred over plurals. Morphological simplification is useful because it increases the chance that a word variant in the question matches the context.Recently, BIBREF10 trained chatbots that negotiate via language utterances in order to complete a task. They report that the agent's language diverges from human language if there is no incentive for fluency in the reward function. Our findings seem related. The fact that the questions reformulated by AQA do not resemble natural language is not due to the keyword-like SearchQA input questions, because Base-NMT is capable of producing fluent questions from the same input.AQA learns to re-weight terms by focusing on informative (lower DF) terms while increasing term frequency (TF) via duplication. At the same time it learns to modify surface forms in ways akin to stemming and morphological analysis. Some of the techniques seem to adapt also to the specific properties of current deep QA architectures such as character-based modelling and attention. Sometimes AQA learns to generate semantically nonsensical, novel, surface term variants; e.g., it might transform the adjective dense to densey. The only justification for this is that such forms can be still exploited by the character-based BiDAF question encoder. Finally, repetitions can directly increase the chances of alignment in the attention components.We hypothesize that there is no incentive for the model to use human language due to the nature of the task. AQA learns to ask BiDAF questions by optimizing a language that increases the likelihood of BiDAF extracting the right answer. BIBREF11 argue that reading comprehension systems are not capable of significant language understanding and fail easily in adversarial settings. We suspect that current machine comprehension tasks involve mostly simple pattern matching and relevance modelling. As a consequence deep QA systems behave as sophisticated ranking systems trained to sort snippets of text from the context. As such, they resemble document retrieval systems which incentivizes the (re-)discovery of IR techniques that have been successful for decades BIBREF12 .

Q: What is the difference in findings of Buck et al? It looks like the same conclusion was mentioned in Buck et al..