aiqbench analysis
This research reveals a critical gap in large language models' ability to manage multi-turn information seeking, showing they often fail to identify the minimal set of queries needed or recognize when context is insufficient. The study formalizes this capability as solving constraint satisfaction problems and demonstrates that current evaluation metrics based solely on final answer accuracy do not capture these distinct reasoning failures. For developers building agentic systems, understanding how models underestimate missing information could be essential for designing more robust dialogue interfaces.
Do LLMs Know What to Ask and When? Evaluating Multi-Turn Information Seeking
arXiv:2608.14808v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a user question is underspecified, a capable model should recognize that its context is insufficient, identify the missing information, ask for it, and respond only once that information determines a unique answer. We formalize multi-turn information seeking as solving a k-underspecified constraint satisfaction problem, where k is the number of variables jointly required to determine the target and therefore measures the degree of missing information. We instantiate the formulation in MT-InfoSeek, a controlled evaluation suite of 5,251 problems and 9,006 task instances spanning mathematics, logic, biology, medicine, and general knowledge. We evaluate models along three axes: what they ask, when they ask it, and how the acquired information affects the final answer. Performance degrades across models and domains as underspecification increases. Models recognize that additional information is needed but underestimate how much, and in logical problems at k = 2 they under-predict the degree of missing information about four times as often as they over-predict it. They also fail to identify a minimal sufficient set of queries, improve only marginally when given the true k, and often stop before acquiring sufficient information. In tasks with ordered dependencies, an incorrect query order reduces final accuracy even when the model eventually acquires all necessary information. We measure information seeking directly through final sufficiency, which records whether the acquired information determines the target independent of answer generation. This separation shows differences between models that final accuracy alone does not capture, and indicates that the ability to seek information over multiple turns is distinct from the ability to generate answers and is not measured by current LLM evaluations.
Title:Do LLMs Know What to Ask and When? Evaluating Multi-Turn Information Seeking
Abstract:When a user question is underspecified, a capable model should recognize that its context is insufficient, identify the missing information, ask for it, and respond only once that information determines a unique answer. We formalize multi-turn information seeking as solving a k-underspecified constraint satisfaction problem, where k is the number of variables jointly required to determine the target and therefore measures the degree of missing information. We instantiate the formulation in MT-InfoSeek, a controlled evaluation suite of 5,251 problems and 9,006 task instances spanning mathematics, logic, biology, medicine, and general knowledge. We evaluate models along three axes: what they ask, when they ask it, and how the acquired information affects the final answer. Performance degrades across models and domains as underspecification increases. Models recognize that additional information is needed but underestimate how much, and in logical problems at k = 2 they under-predict the degree of missing information about four times as often as they over-predict it. They also fail to identify a minimal sufficient set of queries, improve only marginally when given the true k, and often stop before acquiring sufficient information. In tasks with ordered dependencies, an incorrect query order reduces final accuracy even when the model eventually acquires all necessary information. We measure information seeking directly through final sufficiency, which records whether the acquired information determines the target independent of answer generation. This separation shows differences between models that final accuracy alone does not capture, and indicates that the ability to seek information over multiple turns is distinct from the ability to generate answers and is not measured by current LLM evaluations.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.14808 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.14808v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14808 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 378 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026