Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Alexpaca: Learning Factual Clarification Question Generation Without Examples

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 2310.11571 v3 pith:6DIPCE7Z submitted 2023-10-17 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords factualclarificationquestiontasksinformationabilitychallengesclarifying
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Real-life tasks such as giving legal or technical advice often lack complete context at the outset and can have disparate answers depending thereon. The ability to derive missing factual information by asking clarifying questions (ACQ) is an important element of real-life collaboration on such reasoning tasks. Existing factual clarification question challenges evaluate generations based on word overlap or human evaluations. Recent work explores generating a response to the clarifying question then evaluating its utility directly. So far, these tasks are limited to disambiguating the user's intent rather than concrete facts about the situation. The factual domain presents unique challenges since responses to clarification questions must be factually true for accurate evaluation. To enable evaluation of factual domain clarification question generation, We present a new task that focuses on the ability to elicit missing information in multi-hop reasoning tasks. The task, HotpotQA-FLM, can be evaluated automatically, making it convenient for benchmarking language models. We observe that humans outperform GPT-4 by a large margin, while Llama 3 8B Instruct does not even beat the dummy baseline in some metrics. Finally, we find by fine-tuning Llama 3 8B Instruct on its own generations, filtered via rejection sampling, we can improve information recovery by 27.6 percent.

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. "There Is No Such Thing as a Dumb Question," But There Are Good Ones

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A two-dimensional, rubric-based LLM evaluation framework for question quality is proposed and illustrated on CAUS and SQUARE datasets, but its validation is preliminary.

Pith tools