Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Belief-Augmented Generation (BAG), a method that prompts LLMs to reason over a set of K sampled responses (the "belief state") to strategically choose between answering, clarifying, or abstaining in ambiguous QA scenarios. BAG significantly improves QA accuracy across six LLMs by explicitly grounding them in their own uncertainty. However, the study reveals that while BAG enhances strategic decision-making, effectively distinguishing between clarification and abstention remains a challenge.
LLMs, when prompted to consider their own uncertainty, can strategically choose to clarify or abstain from answering ambiguous questions, leading to improved accuracy.
Large language models (LLMs) define a distribution over text, which can be viewed as a probabilistic representation of uncertainty: sampling K responses yields a belief state - responses a model deems plausible. Existing work exploits this representation for narrow tasks like either decoding or selective prediction, and often requires manual interventions, not controlling generation directly. We propose Belief-Augmented Generation (BAG): grounding LLMs in their own belief state via the prompt and letting them reason over these K samples to decide on a conversational strategy: answer, clarify, or abstain. In a multi-turn ambiguous QA setting, we find that LLMs by default rarely clarify or abstain, ignoring uncertainty about the input or facts. BAG improves QA accuracy across six models and yields strategy decisions more faithful to the belief state than prompt-only baselines. Disentangling when to clarify from when to abstain, however, remains challenging.
