Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates whether LLMs, despite being able to identify ambiguity in user queries, actually ask clarifying questions in question-answering scenarios. The authors evaluate LLMs on ambiguous, unambiguous, and disambiguated questions across three settings: standard QA, explicit ambiguity judgment, and behavioral analysis using a judge model to classify responses. Results show a significant gap: LLMs recognize ambiguity when prompted, but rarely ask clarifying questions in standard QA, and retrieved context exacerbates this issue.
LLMs are often overconfident chatbots, not helpful assistants: they can spot ambiguous questions, but almost never ask for clarification before answering.
User queries are often underspecified and may admit multiple valid interpretations. Rather than silently making assumptions about the user's intent, a helpful assistant should surface such ambiguity by asking a clarifying question. Doing so requires two abilities: recognizing that a query is ambiguous, and acting on that recognition by seeking clarification instead of answering directly. To study these abilities, we evaluate models on ambiguous, unambiguous, and disambiguated questions in three settings: standard question answering, explicit ambiguity judgment, and behavioral analysis, where a judge model classifies responses as direct answers, refusals, or clarifying questions. We find a clear gap between recognition and behavior: models often identify ambiguity when explicitly asked to judge it, yet in the QA setting they overwhelmingly default to direct answers. Retrieved context further widens this gap by improving answerability while making models even less likely to ask clarifying questions.
