Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Which Linguist Invented the Lightbulb? Presupposition Verification for Question-Answering

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2101.00391 v2 pith:5QH2QUNA submitted 2021-01-02 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords systempresuppositionquestionsbehaviorexistingverificationapproachdiscuss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Many Question-Answering (QA) datasets contain unanswerable questions, but their treatment in QA systems remains primitive. Our analysis of the Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al. 2019) dataset reveals that a substantial portion of unanswerable questions ($\sim$21%) can be explained based on the presence of unverifiable presuppositions. We discuss the shortcomings of current models in handling such questions, and describe how an improved system could handle them. Through a user preference study, we demonstrate that the oracle behavior of our proposed system that provides responses based on presupposition failure is preferred over the oracle behavior of existing QA systems. Then we discuss how our proposed system could be implemented, presenting a novel framework that breaks down the problem into three steps: presupposition generation, presupposition verification and explanation generation. We report our progress in tackling each subproblem, and present a preliminary approach to integrating these steps into an existing QA system. We find that adding presuppositions and their verifiability to an existing model yields modest gains in downstream performance and unanswerability detection. The biggest bottleneck is the verification component, which needs to be substantially improved for the integrated system to approach ideal behavior -- even transfer from the best entailment models currently falls short.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HopRefusalBench: Diagnosing Refusal Failures in Search-Augmented Agents for Multi-Hop Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark shows search-augmented LLMs correctly refuse only up to 42.9% of unanswerable multi-hop questions, with failures split between hallucinated answers and search exhaustion.

Pith tools