In Table 2, we also compare our ChatQA models using the 7k GPT-3.5-Turbo synthetic dataset (SyntheticConvQA) and our collected 7k human-annotated dataset (HumanAnnotatedConvQA). First, we find that both achieve comparable results in terms of average scores, which suggests that we do not need to rely on synthetic data from OpenAI models to build the state-of-the-art conversational QA models. Second, we find that using human-annotated data achieved significant improvements on QuAC and DoQA datasets. This can be attributed to the fact that the human-annotated data have higher quality on unanswerable cases which exists in QuAC and DoQA datasets. Eventually, it leads to the overall improvements on these two datasets. Detail results and analyses on unanswerable cases can be found in SS6.5).