Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

(QA)$^2$: Question Answering with Questionable Assumptions

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 2212.10003 v2 pith:M7WSR2X6 submitted 2022-12-20 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords assumptionsquestionablequestionquestionsinformation-seekingtypicalableanswering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Naturally occurring information-seeking questions often contain questionable assumptions -- assumptions that are false or unverifiable. Questions containing questionable assumptions are challenging because they require a distinct answer strategy that deviates from typical answers for information-seeking questions. For instance, the question "When did Marie Curie discover Uranium?" cannot be answered as a typical "when" question without addressing the false assumption "Marie Curie discovered Uranium". In this work, we propose (QA)$^2$ (Question Answering with Questionable Assumptions), an open-domain evaluation dataset consisting of naturally occurring search engine queries that may or may not contain questionable assumptions. To be successful on (QA)$^2$, systems must be able to detect questionable assumptions and also be able to produce adequate responses for both typical information-seeking questions and ones with questionable assumptions. Through human rater acceptability on end-to-end QA with (QA)$^2$, we find that current models do struggle with handling questionable assumptions, leaving substantial headroom for progress.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. HopRefusalBench: Diagnosing Refusal Failures in Search-Augmented Agents for Multi-Hop Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark shows search-augmented LLMs correctly refuse only up to 42.9% of unanswerable multi-hop questions, with failures split between hallucinated answers and search exhaustion.

Pith tools