Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

RegretBench introduces a novel evaluation metric for conversational LLMs, shifting focus from isolated question quality to the sequential efficiency of clarification policies. By quantifying value loss relative to an ideal reference policy, this benchmark reveals critical gaps in how models handle ambiguity and determine when to stop interacting versus asking further questions. This work advances our understanding of intent resolution dynamics beyond simple accuracy metrics in open-domain QA scenarios.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

One More Turn, Less Regret: A Regret-Based Multi-Turn Benchmark for LLMs' Clarification Policies

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2607.21143v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Ambiguous user requests make clarification a sequential decision problem for conversational LLM assistants: they must decide whether to ask, what to ask, when to stop, and when to answer. We introduce RegretBench, a multi-turn benchmark that evaluates clarification as policy behavior rather than isolated question quality. RegretBench provides a hidden-intent formulation of ambiguity, supports free-form interaction grounded in semantic-state tracking, and introduces a regret-based objective that measures how much value a model loses relative to a reference clarification policy. Experiments on open-domain QA and product recommendation scenarios show that final success alone is insufficient, as models with similar accuracy can differ substantially in efficiency, robustness to user behaviors, and stopping decisions. By jointly measuring intent resolution, interaction cost, ineffective clarification, and regret, RegretBench reveals whether models clarify usefully and efficiently. Our results show that effective clarification requires more than plausible questions: models must ask the right question at the right time and stop once the user's intended meaning is clear.

Abstract:Ambiguous user requests make clarification a sequential decision problem for conversational LLM assistants: they must decide whether to ask, what to ask, when to stop, and when to answer. We introduce RegretBench, a multi-turn benchmark that evaluates clarification as policy behavior rather than isolated question quality. RegretBench provides a hidden-intent formulation of ambiguity, supports free-form interaction grounded in semantic-state tracking, and introduces a regret-based objective that measures how much value a model loses relative to a reference clarification policy. Experiments on open-domain QA and product recommendation scenarios show that final success alone is insufficient, as models with similar accuracy can differ substantially in efficiency, robustness to user behaviors, and stopping decisions. By jointly measuring intent resolution, interaction cost, ineffective clarification, and regret, RegretBench reveals whether models clarify usefully and efficiently. Our results show that effective clarification requires more than plausible questions: models must ask the right question at the right time and stop once the user's intended meaning is clear.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2607.21143 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2607.21143v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.21143 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 · 258 words

Related coverage