REVIEW 2 cited by
AmbigNLG: Addressing Task Ambiguity in Instruction for NLG
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
We introduce AmbigNLG, a novel task designed to tackle the challenge of task ambiguity in instructions for Natural Language Generation (NLG). Ambiguous instructions often impede the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), especially in complex NLG tasks. To tackle this issue, we propose an ambiguity taxonomy that categorizes different types of instruction ambiguities and refines initial instructions with clearer specifications. Accompanying this task, we present AmbigSNI-NLG, a dataset comprising 2,500 instances annotated to facilitate research in AmbigNLG. Through comprehensive experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs, we demonstrate that our method significantly enhances the alignment of generated text with user expectations, achieving up to a 15.02-point increase in ROUGE scores. Our findings highlight the critical importance of addressing task ambiguity to fully harness the capabilities of LLMs in NLG tasks. Furthermore, we confirm the effectiveness of our method in practical settings involving interactive ambiguity mitigation with users, underscoring the benefits of leveraging LLMs for interactive clarification.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Next-Token Prediction Should be Ambiguity-Sensitive: A Meta-Learning Perspective
Transformers systematically deviate from the Bayes-optimal predictor under high-ambiguity contexts on a new HMM benchmark, and a Monte Carlo predictor that decouples task inference from token prediction partly closes ...
-
LLM-based ambiguity detection in natural language instructions for collaborative surgical robots
An ensemble of five LLM evaluators plus conformal prediction labeled surgical instructions as ambiguous or clear with 70% (Llama 3.2 11B) and 82.5% (Gemma 3 12B) accuracy, measured in-sample on the 40-instruction cali...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.