You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
The conventional paradigm in neural question answering (QA) for narrative content is limited to a two-stage process: first, relevant text passages are retrieved and, subsequently, a neural network for machine comprehension extracts the likeliest answer. However, both stages are largely isolated in the status quo and, hence, information from the two phases is never properly fused. In contrast, this work proposes RankQA: RankQA extends the conventional two-stage process in neural QA with a third stage that performs an additional answer re-ranking. The re-ranking leverages different features that are directly extracted from the QA pipeline, i.e., a combination of retrieval and comprehension features. While our intentionally simple design allows for an efficient, data-sparse estimation, it nevertheless outperforms more complex QA systems by a significant margin: in fact, RankQA achieves state-of-the-art performance on 3 out of 4 benchmark datasets. Furthermore, its performance is especially superior in settings where the size of the corpus is dynamic. Here the answer re-ranking provides an effective remedy against the underlying noise-information trade-off due to a variable corpus size. As a consequence, RankQA represents a novel, powerful, and thus challenging baseline for future research in content-based QA.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: 

[2]: In recent years researchers have achieved considerable success applying neural network methods to question answering (QA). These approaches have achieved state of the art results in simplified closed-domain settings such as the SQuAD (, 2016) dataset, which provides a pre-selected passage, from which the answer to a given question may be extracted. More recently, researchers have begun to tackle open-domain QA, in which the model is given a question and access to a large corpus (e.g., wikipedia) instead of a pre-selected passage (, 2017a). This setting is more complex as it requires large-scale search for relevant passages by an information retrieval component, combined with a reading comprehension model that "reads" the passages to generate an answer to the question. Performance in this setting lags considerably behind closed-domain performance. In this paper, we present a novel open-domain QA system called Reinforced Ranker-Reader @math , based on two algorithmic innovations. First, we propose a new pipeline for open-domain QA with a Ranker component, which learns to rank retrieved passages in terms of likelihood of generating the ground-truth answer to a given question. Second, we propose a novel method that jointly trains the Ranker along with an answer-generation Reader model, based on reinforcement learning. We report extensive experimental results showing that our method significantly improves on the state of the art for multiple open-domain QA datasets.

[3]: We investigate using gradient descent methods for learning ranking functions; we propose a simple probabilistic cost function, and we introduce RankNet, an implementation of these ideas using a neural network to model the underlying ranking function. We present test results on toy data and on data from a commercial internet search engine.
Neural QA systems, such as DrQA [3] or @math [2] , are usually designed as pipelines of two consecutive stages, namely a module for information retrieval and a module for machine comprehension. The overall performance depends on how many top- @math passages are fed into the module for machine comprehension, which then essentially generates multiple candidate answers out of which the one with the highest answer probability score is chosen. However, this gives rise to a noise-information trade-off [1] . That is, selecting a large @math generates many candidate answers, but increases the probability of selecting the wrong final answer. Similarly, retrieving a small number of top- @math passages reduces the chance that the candidate answers contain the correct answer at all.