aiqbench analysis
This research introduces the Overlap-Unique-Conflict (OUC) benchmark, revealing that current LLMs struggle significantly to extract conflicting or overlapping clauses from full narratives compared to unique information. Diagnostic analysis indicates this limitation stems not just from recognition but from a failure to correctly pair corresponding clauses, particularly in smaller models. While task-specific fine-tuning can narrow the performance gap, cross-narrative clause extraction remains a substantial open challenge for the field.
Overlap, Unique and Conflict: Can LLMs Extract What They Can Recognize?
arXiv:2609.38799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Understanding multi-perspective alternative narratives requires identifying how their information agrees, conflicts, or differs across sources. Existing work on cross-text relations largely focuses on categorizing relations between predefined text pairs, such as entailment or contradiction, rather than directly extracting such information from full narratives. To address this gap, we introduce Overlap-Unique-Conflict (OUC) extraction, a cross-narrative task that extracts all overlapping, conflicting, and unique clauses from two narratives. To support this study, we construct a benchmark of approximately 22K narrative pairs and 140K OUC instances spanning factual, argumentative, and political discourse. Evaluating 14 open-source LLMs (0.6B-35B), we find that unique information is far easier to extract than overlap and conflict: the strongest model, Gemma-4-31B, reaches only 61.13% F1-score on overlap and 48.58% on conflict, against more than 75% on unique. Further diagnostic analysis reveals that this difficulty does not stem from relation recognition alone, but rather from a failure to pair and extract the corresponding clauses from full narratives, especially in smaller models. Nevertheless, learning these extractions with task-specific supervision narrows the gap considerably: a fine-tuned Qwen-3-8B gains 15-28% absolute over its baseline and surpasses models roughly four times its size (e.g., Qwen-3.6-35B) on several tasks. Even so, overlap and conflict remain well below satisfactory, leaving cross-narrative clause extraction an open challenge.
Title:Overlap, Unique and Conflict: Can LLMs Extract What They Can Recognize?
Abstract:Understanding multi-perspective alternative narratives requires identifying how their information agrees, conflicts, or differs across sources. Existing work on cross-text relations largely focuses on categorizing relations between predefined text pairs, such as entailment or contradiction, rather than directly extracting such information from full narratives. To address this gap, we introduce Overlap-Unique-Conflict (OUC) extraction, a cross-narrative task that extracts all overlapping, conflicting, and unique clauses from two narratives. To support this study, we construct a benchmark of approximately 22K narrative pairs and 140K OUC instances spanning factual, argumentative, and political discourse. Evaluating 14 open-source LLMs (0.6B-35B), we find that unique information is far easier to extract than overlap and conflict: the strongest model, Gemma-4-31B, reaches only 61.13% F1-score on overlap and 48.58% on conflict, against more than 75% on unique. Further diagnostic analysis reveals that this difficulty does not stem from relation recognition alone, but rather from a failure to pair and extract the corresponding clauses from full narratives, especially in smaller models. Nevertheless, learning these extractions with task-specific supervision narrows the gap considerably: a fine-tuned Qwen-3-8B gains 15-28% absolute over its baseline and surpasses models roughly four times its size (e.g., Qwen-3.6-35B) on several tasks. Even so, overlap and conflict remain well below satisfactory, leaving cross-narrative clause extraction an open challenge.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.38799 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.38799v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.38799 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 · 316 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

The user in the LLM might be a moral patient too (a strange implication of the PSM and simulators)
LessWrong · Oct 15, 2026
Multimodal Ambivalence/Hesitancy Recognition in Videos for Personalized Digital Health Interventions
arXiv · Oct 5, 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · Aug 26, 2026