Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

ELOQ: Resources for Enhancing LLM Detection of Out-of-Scope Questions

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 2410.14567 v4 pith:UZV73DAQ submitted 2024-10-18 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords questionsout-of-scopellmsanswersdetectiondocumentseloqgenerate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become integral to large language models (LLMs), particularly for conversational AI systems where user questions may reference knowledge beyond the LLMs' training cutoff. However, many natural user questions lack well-defined answers, either due to limited domain knowledge or because the retrieval system returns documents that are relevant in appearance but uninformative in content. In such cases, LLMs often produce hallucinated answers without flagging them. While recent work has largely focused on questions with false premises, we study out-of-scope questions, where the retrieved document appears semantically similar to the question but lacks the necessary information to answer it. In this paper, we propose a guided hallucination-based approach ELOQ to automatically generate a diverse set of out-of-scope questions from post-cutoff documents, followed by human verification to ensure quality. We use this dataset to evaluate several LLMs on their ability to detect out-of-scope questions and generate appropriate responses. Finally, we introduce an improved detection method that enhances the reliability of LLM-based question-answering systems in handling out-of-scope questions.

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. Can LLMs Be Trusted for Evaluating RAG Systems? A Survey of Methods and Datasets

    cs.IR 2025-04 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 63 RAG evaluation papers concludes that LLM-based automation is feasible across dataset generation, retrieval scoring, and answer evaluation, but only six studies directly compare LLM judges wit...

Pith tools