arXiv AI

On Scope Classification and Current Knowledge-Editing Benchmarks: A Negative Result, with INLAY as a Gradient-Free Case Study

The paper reports that existing knowledge‑editing benchmarks cannot evaluate the scope decision—whether a stored edit applies to a query—because they are counterfactual and lack negative examples. Using the gradient‑free editor INLAY, the authors exhaustively test every router action on 1,689 queries across three datasets and find that an oracle router achieves no gain over a static policy, and abstention never wins. The authors attribute this to the structural design of the benchmarks and demonstrate that adding a missing negative condition restores some headroom and allows abstention to win.

arXiv AI
Aug 24

Clarify-Then-Search: A Clarification Benchmark for Deep Search with End-to-End Nugget Restoration

Clarify-Then-Search is a benchmark that tests whether large language models can ask clarification questions to improve the usefulness of deep search results. It uses 518 real-world query pairs from Baidu, where each intent query is paired with an underspecified version. The evaluation involves a clarifier asking up to three questions, a user answerer providing only explicit information, and a rewriter generating a new query that is then searched; performance is measured by a weighted nugget-recall score.

By Deqiang Huang, Jingbo Zhou, Xinjiang Lu, Tong Xu, Hua Wu, Enhong Chen
arXiv AI
Oct 12

Same Query, Different Answer: Run-to-Run Variance in Semantic Query Processing

The paper investigates run‑to‑run variance in semantic query engines that use large language models (LLMs) to evaluate rows. By re‑executing benchmarks (SemBench, LRO‑Bench, UDA‑Bench) and logging 1.2 million model calls, the authors find that between 0.07% and 10.2% of rows change output at temperature 0, with some tasks showing up to 24% change. They show that plan amplification can cause a large fraction of answers to differ, that many benchmark comparisons are unresolved, and that voting and calibrated cascades reduce but do not eliminate variance, leading to new reporting and design guidelines.

By Oktie Hassanzadeh, Dharmashankar Subramanian
arXiv AI
Oct 7

Evaluating Escalation Signals for LLM Routing: Targets, Controls, and Five Ways to Fool Yourself

The paper investigates whether semantic entropy—a measure of disagreement among a language model’s sampled answers—can serve as a cheap signal for deciding when to route a query from a small to a larger language model. Experiments on GSM8K and other benchmarks show that semantic entropy can distinguish small‑model mistakes and improve routed accuracy, but the authors also reveal that a simple question‑difficulty rule can mimic its performance and that other factors (definition of success, benchmark design, live sampling cost) can undermine its effectiveness. They propose a checklist of checks to validate escalation signals and demonstrate how to predict when a cached‑outcome approach will fail. "whyItMatters":"The study highlights the importance of rigorous evaluation of escalation signals, showing that seemingly promising metrics can be misleading without proper controls and that practical routing decisions must account for cost and benchmark design."

By Ramin Pishehvar, Andrea Morandi, Mahesh Viswanathan
arXiv AI
Sep 7

Iris: Climbing to the Search Frontier

The paper introduces Iris-mini and Iris-pro, two search agents trained at 35B and 397B parameter scales. They use a novel data pipeline that constructs reverse‑engineered multi‑hop queries from web hyperlinks, filters trajectories, and alternates supervised fine‑tuning with reinforcement learning in a process called SFT‑RL climbing. Evaluations on several benchmarks show that, with inference‑time context management, the agents achieve the best open‑source results in their parameter ranges.

By Ziyuan Liu, Hengqi Liu, Zichuan Wang, Yang Qin, Jiachen Liang, Xu Chu, Shaowei Chen, Yuantao Gu, Mu Chuan