REVIEW 3 cited by
Modeling Future Conversation Turns to Teach LLMs to Ask Clarifying Questions
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
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) must often respond to highly ambiguous user requests. In such cases, the LLM's best response may be to ask a clarifying question to elicit more information. Existing LLMs often respond by presupposing a single interpretation of such ambiguous requests, frustrating users who intended a different interpretation. We speculate this is caused by current preference data labeling practice, where LLM responses are evaluated only on their prior contexts. To address this, we assign preference labels by simulating their expected outcomes in future turns. This allows LLMs to learn to ask clarifying questions when it can generate responses that are tailored to each user interpretation in future turns. On open-domain QA datasets with multiple annotations, we evaluate systems based on their ability to ask clarifying questions to recover each user's interpretation and expected answer. We compare systems trained using our proposed preference labeling methods against standard methods, which assign preferences based on only prior context. Our method achieves a 5% improvement in F1 measured against the answer set from different interpretations of each query, showing the value of modeling future conversation turns. We further demonstrate that our method can be used to train models to judiciously determine when to ask clarifying questions, directly answering the question when clarification is unnecessary. In our experiments, we find that our method achieves a 3% improvement in accuracy of such judgments over existing methods.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Interactive Task Alignment as a POMDP
Under ambiguous user requests, current LLMs recover the intended task only 22–32% of the time, well below human accuracy of 48%, and post-training only partially closes the gap.
-
UserBench: An Interactive Gym Environment for User-Centric Agents
A new multi-turn agent benchmark shows that current LLMs elicit fewer than 30% of user preferences and reach full intent alignment only about 20% of the time.
-
The Curious Language Model: Strategic Test-Time Information Acquisition
CuriosiTree is a greedy tree-search policy that lets LLMs select cost-effective information-gathering actions at test time, outperforming baselines in a simulated clinical diagnosis environment.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.