Many online content portals allow users to ask questions to supplement their understanding (e.g., of lectures). While information retrieval (IR) systems may provide answers for such user queries, they do not directly assist content creators—such as lecturers who want to improve their content—identify segments that caused a user to ask those questions.We introduce the task of backtracing, in which systems retrieve the text segment that most likely caused a user query.We formalize three real-world domains for which backtracing is important in improving content delivery and communication: understanding the cause of (a) student confusion in the Lecture domain, (b) reader curiosity in the News Article domain, and (c) user emotion in the Conversation domain.We evaluate the zero-shot performance of popular information retrieval methods and language modeling methods, including bi-encoder, re-ranking and likelihood-based methods and ChatGPT.While traditional IR systems retrieve semantically relevant information (e.g., details on “projection matrices” for a query “does projecting multiple times still lead to the same point?”), they often miss the causally relevant context (e.g., the lecturer states “projecting twice gets me the same answer as one projection”). Our results show that there is room for improvement on backtracing and it requires new retrieval approaches.We hope our benchmark serves to improve future retrieval systems for backtracing, spawning systems that refine content generation and identify linguistic triggers influencing user queries.

Lectures are a learning experience for both students and teachers. Students learn from teachers about the subject material, while teachers learn from students about how to refine their instruction. Unfortunately, online student feedback is unstructured and abundant, making it challenging for teachers to learn and improve. We take a step towards tackling this challenge. First, we contribute a dataset for studying this problem: SIGHT is a large dataset of 288 math lecture transcripts and 15,784 comments collected from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) YouTube channel. Second, we develop a rubric for categorizing feedback types using qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis methods are powerful in uncovering domain-specific insights, however they are costly to apply to large data sources. To overcome this challenge, we propose a set of best practices for using large language models (LLMs) to cheaply classify the comments at scale. We observe a striking correlation between the model’s and humans’ annotation: Categories with consistent human annotations (0.9 inter-rater reliability, IRR) also display higher human-model agreement (0.7), while categories with less consistent human annotations (0.7-0.8 IRR) correspondingly demonstrate lower human-model agreement (0.3-0.5). These techniques uncover useful student feedback from thousands of comments, costing around $0.002 per comment. We conclude by discussing exciting future directions on using online student feedback and improving automated annotation techniques for qualitative research.