Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Chain-of-Discussion: A Multi-Model Framework for Complex Evidence-Based Question Answering

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 2402.16313 v3 pith:MTVF7ZCW submitted 2024-02-26 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords answersquestionllmsmodelsansweringcomprehensivediscussionsevidence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Open-ended question answering requires models to find appropriate evidence to form wellreasoned, comprehensive and helpful answers. In practical applications, models also need to engage in extended discussions on potential scenarios closely relevant to the question. With augmentation of retrieval module, open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce coherent answers often with different focuses, but are still sub-optimal in terms of reliable evidence selection and in-depth question analysis. In this paper, we propose a novel Chain-ofDiscussion framework to leverage the synergy among multiple open-source LLMs aiming to provide more correct and more comprehensive answers for open-ended QA, although they are not strong enough individually. Our experiments show that discussions among multiple LLMs play a vital role in enhancing the quality of answers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. MinosEval: Distinguishing Factoid and Non-Factoid for Tailored Open-Ended QA Evaluation with LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MinosEval improves open-ended QA evaluation by sorting questions into factoid and non-factoid and applying tailored scoring, outperforming baselines on four datasets.

  2. An Empirical Study of Evaluating Long-form Question Answering

    cs.IR 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In long-form QA, LLM-based evaluators correlate with human judgments better than ROUGE or BERTScore, but they are biased by answer length, question type, self-reinforcement, and rare-word usage, and fine-grained promp...

Pith tools