arXiv:2608. 03177v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How can question answering (QA) systems determine whether a query is ambiguous?
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 04646v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many real-world questions over business, legal, and scientific corpora are natural-language versions of database-style queries over records latent in text.
arXiv:2605. 17301v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems implicitly assume mutual consistency among retrieved documents -- an assumption that frequently fails in practice.
Reliable evaluation of open-ended question answering remains a bottleneck for measuring answer correctness of modern LLMs. Unlike multiple-choice tasks, free-form answers may be correct in many surfac...
arXiv:2606. 02093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The task of Error Prediction, namely predicting whether a model output is correct, is commonly tackled with Uncertainty Quantification (UQ).
arXiv:2606. 06197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Question answering (QA) systems have achieved notable progress with the advent of large language models (LLMs).
The paper introduces a semantic correctness taxonomy that categorizes open‑ended QA answers into eight ordered classes, distinguishing between correct, verbose, and hallucinated responses. It releases two datasets—CAP‑Correctness and CAP‑Statements—to support benchmark evaluation and NLI‑based training. The authors also propose CAP (Context‑Aware Precision), a reference‑based metric that scores question‑conditioned statements via bidirectional NLI and demonstrates superior performance under a monotonicity protocol.