In Table 7, we compare our models with OpenAI models across QuAC and DoQA datasets. First, we find that compared to using SyntheticConvQA, using HumanAnnotatedConvQA significantly increase the average accuracies on both QuAC and DoQA. It is because the unanswerable annotations are in higher quality for human-annotated data, which significantly improve the accuracy for unanswerable cases. Second, OpenAI models show powerful capability in this task, especially for GPT-4. Compared to them, our best model achieved significantly better average accuracy than GPT-3.5-turbo, while we still has a slight gap compared to GPT-4 (around 3.5%). Third, we find that models achieving higher accuracy on unanswerable samples tends to get lower accuracy on answerable samples, and vice versa. We speculate that when a model tends to be "aggressive" and offer somewhat relevant answers to those unanswerable questions, it will boost the accuracy for answerable cases, but reduces accuracy for unanswerable ones. Conversely, when a model is more "conservative" and strictly check if the question can be answered will result in the opposite effects.