Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

ASQA: Factoid Questions Meet Long-Form Answers

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2204.06092 v2 pith:JLGUN3PV submitted 2022-04-12 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords asqaquestionsambiguousanswerlong-formanswersfactoidmetric
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

An abundance of datasets and availability of reliable evaluation metrics have resulted in strong progress in factoid question answering (QA). This progress, however, does not easily transfer to the task of long-form QA, where the goal is to answer questions that require in-depth explanations. The hurdles include (i) a lack of high-quality data, and (ii) the absence of a well-defined notion of the answer's quality. In this work, we address these problems by (i) releasing a novel dataset and a task that we call ASQA (Answer Summaries for Questions which are Ambiguous); and (ii) proposing a reliable metric for measuring performance on ASQA. Our task focuses on factoid questions that are ambiguous, that is, have different correct answers depending on interpretation. Answers to ambiguous questions should synthesize factual information from multiple sources into a long-form summary that resolves the ambiguity. In contrast to existing long-form QA tasks (such as ELI5), ASQA admits a clear notion of correctness: a user faced with a good summary should be able to answer different interpretations of the original ambiguous question. We use this notion of correctness to define an automated metric of performance for ASQA. Our analysis demonstrates an agreement between this metric and human judgments, and reveals a considerable gap between human performance and strong baselines.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ARC-Encoder: learning compressed text representations for large language models

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ARC-Encoder pools queries in an encoder's last attention layer to produce compressed continuous representations that a frozen decoder consumes as token embeddings.

  2. Linguistic Nepotism: Trading-off Quality for Language Preference in Multilingual RAG

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In multilingual retrieval-augmented generation, models cite English evidence more accurately than translated evidence, and this language preference can outweigh document relevance.

  3. CrEst: Credibility Estimation for Contexts in LLMs via Weak Supervision

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A label-free method that scores retrieved documents by their agreement with the majority in embedding space and uses those scores to filter context in LLM question answering.

  4. An Empirical Study on Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning-Search Interleaved LLM Agents

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Format rewards help base LLMs more than intermediate retrieval rewards, general-purpose backbones beat reasoning-distilled ones, and stronger search engines stabilize RL training for LLM search agents.

Pith tools