"There Is No Such Thing as a Dumb Question," But There Are Good Ones

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09923v1
• Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 03:12:28 GMT
• Title: "There Is No Such Thing as a Dumb Question," But There Are Good Ones
• Authors: Minjung Shin, Donghyun Kim, Jeh-Kwang Ryu,
• Abstract summary: This study defines good questions and presents a systematic evaluation framework.<n>We propose two key evaluation dimensions: appropriateness (sociolinguistic competence in context) and effectiveness.<n>By incorporating dynamic contextual variables, our evaluation framework achieves structure and flexibility through semi-adaptive criteria.
• Score: 4.962252439662465
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Questioning has become increasingly crucial for both humans and artificial intelligence, yet there remains limited research comprehensively assessing question quality. In response, this study defines good questions and presents a systematic evaluation framework. We propose two key evaluation dimensions: appropriateness (sociolinguistic competence in context) and effectiveness (strategic competence in goal achievement). Based on these foundational dimensions, a rubric-based scoring system was developed. By incorporating dynamic contextual variables, our evaluation framework achieves structure and flexibility through semi-adaptive criteria. The methodology was validated using the CAUS and SQUARE datasets, demonstrating the ability of the framework to access both well-formed and problematic questions while adapting to varied contexts. As we establish a flexible and comprehensive framework for question evaluation, this study takes a significant step toward integrating questioning behavior with structured analytical methods grounded in the intrinsic nature of questioning.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Fitness of Ontologies for the Task of Question Generation [0.0]
  This paper proposes a set of requirements and task-specific metrics for evaluating the fitness of question generation tasks in settings.<n>An expert-based approach is employed to assess of various performance in Automatic Question Generation (AQG)<n>Our results demonstrate that characteristics significantly impact the effectiveness of question generation, with different tasks evaluated over varying performance levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T17:10:04Z)
• Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey [64.08485471150486]
  This survey examines evaluation methods for large language model (LLM)-based agents in multi-turn conversational settings.<n>We systematically reviewed nearly 250 scholarly sources, capturing the state of the art from various venues of publication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T14:08:40Z)
• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios.<n>Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models.<n>We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• UKTF: Unified Knowledge Tracing Framework for Subjective and Objective Assessments [3.378008889662775]
  Knowledge tracing technology can establish knowledge state models based on learners' historical answer data. This study proposes a unified knowledge tracing model that integrates both objective and subjective test questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T04:58:19Z)
• Multi-Faceted Question Complexity Estimation Targeting Topic Domain-Specificity [0.0]
  This paper presents a novel framework for domain-specific question difficulty estimation, leveraging a suite of NLP techniques and knowledge graph analysis. We introduce four key parameters: Topic Retrieval Cost, Topic Salience, Topic Coherence, and Topic Superficiality. A model trained on these features demonstrates the efficacy of our approach in predicting question difficulty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T05:40:35Z)
• Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework [4.41358655687435]
  The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential.<n> evaluating HAIC's effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved.<n>This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T12:52:22Z)
• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus [10.135749005469686]
  One of the unsolved challenges in the field of Explainable AI (XAI) is determining how to most reliably estimate the quality of an explanation method. We address this issue through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI. Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:59:02Z)
• What should I Ask: A Knowledge-driven Approach for Follow-up Questions Generation in Conversational Surveys [63.51903260461746]
  We propose a novel task for knowledge-driven follow-up question generation in conversational surveys. We constructed a new human-annotated dataset of human-written follow-up questions with dialogue history and labeled knowledge. We then propose a two-staged knowledge-driven model for the task, which generates informative and coherent follow-up questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T00:57:33Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.