REVIEW 3 cited by
AmbigDocs: Reasoning across Documents on Different Entities under the Same Name
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
read the original abstract
Different entities with the same name can be difficult to distinguish. Handling confusing entity mentions is a crucial skill for language models (LMs). For example, given the question "Where was Michael Jordan educated?" and a set of documents discussing different people named Michael Jordan, can LMs distinguish entity mentions to generate a cohesive answer to the question? To test this ability, we introduce a new benchmark, AmbigDocs. By leveraging Wikipedia's disambiguation pages, we identify a set of documents, belonging to different entities who share an ambiguous name. From these documents, we generate questions containing an ambiguous name and their corresponding sets of answers. Our analysis reveals that current state-of-the-art models often yield ambiguous answers or incorrectly merge information belonging to different entities. We establish an ontology categorizing four types of incomplete answers and automatic evaluation metrics to identify such categories. We lay the foundation for future work on reasoning across multiple documents with ambiguous entities.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
One More Turn, Less Regret: A Regret-Based Multi-Turn Benchmark for LLMs' Clarification Policies
RegretBench evaluates LLM clarification as a sequential policy under hidden intent, showing that final accuracy alone misses large differences in interaction efficiency and stopping quality.
-
MDBench: A Synthetic Multi-Document Reasoning Benchmark Generated with Knowledge Guidance
MDBench is a synthetically generated, knowledge-guided benchmark for multi-document QA on which frontier LLMs achieve only about 60% exact match.
-
Resolving Conflicting Evidence in Automated Fact-Checking: A Study on Retrieval-Augmented LLMs
A new dataset of claims with conflicting web evidence shows retrieval-augmented LLMs are fragile, and source-credibility cues help only modestly.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.