analiza aiqbench
This research investigates the internal signals within large language models that indicate when information is insufficient to answer a query, effectively testing the limits of model honesty in dialogue. The study introduces a new multi-turn benchmark and demonstrates that while latent probes can detect unanswerability with high accuracy across different domains, they currently fail to consistently improve end-task performance without fine-tuning. Ultimately, the findings suggest that improving how models utilize clarification questions is more critical than merely detecting the need for one.
Knowing When Not to Answer: Cross-Domain and Multi-Turn Generalization of Latent Underspecification Signals
arXiv:2610.08413v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models routinely answer questions that cannot be answered from the information given, and in dialogue they answer before enough has been said. Unanswerability is linearly decodable from hidden states, but it is unclear which of its forms share a representation and whether the signal is useful in dialogue. We contribute a turn-labeled multi-turn benchmark (423 conversations, 1,661 labeled turn-states) and an evaluation harness with a simulated user who answers clarifying questions, and use them with six datasets and six open-weight LLMs to test how far probes for unanswerability carry. Probes transfer robustly between datasets that share a ground of unanswerability: missing information in math (AUROC 0.77-0.97) and in a passage (SQuAD 2.0MuSiQue, 0.77-0.90). Probes for epistemic "known-unknowns" transfer poorly to math, but this separation weakens under lexical controls and changes with layer and coordinate system, so it remains unresolved. Single-turn probes fail zero-shot to detect when a conversation becomes answerable; in-structure probes recover it, but no better than a bag-of-words classifier. A gate on the calibrated probe, with no model fine-tuning, fires on underspecified turns far more precisely than chance, and its end-task success comes within 0.08 of a gate given the true labels. Yet across four models it does not reliably beat vanilla generation or prompted consolidation. The remaining gap lies mostly in how models use a clarification, not in detection.
Abstract:Large language models routinely answer questions that cannot be answered from the information given, and in dialogue they answer before enough has been said. Unanswerability is linearly decodable from hidden states, but it is unclear which of its forms share a representation and whether the signal is useful in dialogue. We contribute a turn-labeled multi-turn benchmark (423 conversations, 1,661 labeled turn-states) and an evaluation harness with a simulated user who answers clarifying questions, and use them with six datasets and six open-weight LLMs to test how far probes for unanswerability carry. Probes transfer robustly between datasets that share a ground of unanswerability: missing information in math (AUROC 0.77-0.97) and in a passage (SQuAD 2.0<->MuSiQue, 0.77-0.90). Probes for epistemic "known-unknowns" transfer poorly to math, but this separation weakens under lexical controls and changes with layer and coordinate system, so it remains unresolved. Single-turn probes fail zero-shot to detect when a conversation becomes answerable; in-structure probes recover it, but no better than a bag-of-words classifier. A gate on the calibrated probe, with no model fine-tuning, fires on underspecified turns far more precisely than chance, and its end-task success comes within 0.08 of a gate given the true labels. Yet across four models it does not reliably beat vanilla generation or prompted consolidation. The remaining gap lies mostly in how models use a clarification, not in detection.
15 pages, 3 figures, 10 tables. Under review
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.08413 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.08413v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.08413 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 333 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 3 oct. 2026

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

An Organizational Second Brain: Building an AI That Learns From Experts
Meta Engineering · 2 sept. 2026
Collaborative Gym: A Framework for Enabling and Evaluating Human-Agent Collaboration
Snorkel AI Blog · 4 iun. 2026