Knowing What's Missing: Assessing Information Sufficiency in Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06476v1
• Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2025 15:58:22 GMT
• Title: Knowing What's Missing: Assessing Information Sufficiency in Question Answering
• Abstract summary: We propose a structured Identify-then-Verify framework for robust sufficiency modeling.<n>We evaluate our method against established baselines across diverse multi-hop and factual QA datasets.
• Score: 3.8786514101828167
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Determining whether a provided context contains sufficient information to answer a question is a critical challenge for building reliable question-answering systems. While simple prompting strategies have shown success on factual questions, they frequently fail on inferential ones that require reasoning beyond direct text extraction. We hypothesize that asking a model to first reason about what specific information is missing provides a more reliable, implicit signal for assessing overall sufficiency. To this end, we propose a structured Identify-then-Verify framework for robust sufficiency modeling. Our method first generates multiple hypotheses about missing information and establishes a semantic consensus. It then performs a critical verification step, forcing the model to re-examine the source text to confirm whether this information is truly absent. We evaluate our method against established baselines across diverse multi-hop and factual QA datasets. The results demonstrate that by guiding the model to justify its claims about missing information, our framework produces more accurate sufficiency judgments while clearly articulating any information gaps.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Know What to Ask and When? Evaluating Multi-Turn Information Seeking [27.6486449009769]
  We formalize multi-turn information seeking as solving a k-underspecified constraint satisfaction problem.<n>We evaluate models along three axes: what they ask, when they ask it, and how the acquired information affects the final answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T18:23:32Z)
• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• PassiveQA: A Three-Action Framework for Epistemically Calibrated Question Answering via Supervised Finetuning [0.0]
  We study decision-aware query resolution under incomplete information, where a model must determine whether to Answer, Ask for clarification, or Abstain.<n>We propose PassiveQA, a three-action framework that aligns model behaviour with information sufficiency through supervised finetuning.<n>Our approach integrates structured information-state representations, knowledge graph-grounded context, and a finetuned planner that explicitly models missing variables and decision reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T09:54:16Z)
• InfoGatherer: Principled Information Seeking via Evidence Retrieval and Strategic Questioning [50.375547542738055]
  InfoGatherer is a framework that gathers missing information from two complementary sources without collapsing to a definitive answer.<n> InfoGatherer outperforms strong baselines while requiring fewer turns across legal and medical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T04:55:03Z)
• Explaining Sources of Uncertainty in Automated Fact-Checking [41.236833314783134]
  CLUE (Conflict-and-Agreement-aware Language-model Uncertainty Explanations) is a framework to generate natural language explanations of model uncertainty.<n>It identifies relationships between spans of text that expose claim-evidence or inter-evidence conflicts and agreements that drive the model's predictive uncertainty.<n> CLUE produces explanations that are more faithful to the model's uncertainty and more consistent with fact-checking decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:06:43Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established.<n>This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt.<n>We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• InfoLossQA: Characterizing and Recovering Information Loss in Text Simplification [60.10193972862099]
  This work proposes a framework to characterize and recover simplification-induced information loss in form of question-and-answer pairs. QA pairs are designed to help readers deepen their knowledge of a text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T19:00:01Z)
• R-Tuning: Instructing Large Language Models to Say `I Don't Know' [66.11375475253007]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized numerous domains with their impressive performance but still face their challenges. Previous instruction tuning methods force the model to complete a sentence no matter whether the model knows the knowledge or not. We present a new approach called Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning (R-Tuning) Experimental results demonstrate R-Tuning effectively improves a model's ability to answer known questions and refrain from answering unknown questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:45:44Z)
• EX-FEVER: A Dataset for Multi-hop Explainable Fact Verification [22.785622371421876]
  We present a pioneering dataset for multi-hop explainable fact verification. With over 60,000 claims involving 2-hop and 3-hop reasoning, each is created by summarizing and modifying information from hyperlinked Wikipedia documents. We demonstrate a novel baseline system on our EX-FEVER dataset, showcasing document retrieval, explanation generation, and claim verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T06:46:15Z)
• Explainable Claim Verification via Knowledge-Grounded Reasoning with Large Language Models [36.91218391728405]
  This paper presents First-Order-Logic-Guided Knowledge-Grounded (FOLK) Reasoning. It can verify complex claims and generate explanations without the need for annotated evidence. Our experiment results indicate that FOLK outperforms strong baselines on three datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T18:04:05Z)
• Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
  Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination" We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)
• ReCEval: Evaluating Reasoning Chains via Correctness and Informativeness [67.49087159888298]
  ReCEval is a framework that evaluates reasoning chains via two key properties: correctness and informativeness. We show that ReCEval effectively identifies various error types and yields notable improvements compared to prior methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T02:19:06Z)
• CREPE: Open-Domain Question Answering with False Presuppositions [92.20501870319765]
  We introduce CREPE, a QA dataset containing a natural distribution of presupposition failures from online information-seeking forums. We find that 25% of questions contain false presuppositions, and provide annotations for these presuppositions and their corrections. We show that adaptations of existing open-domain QA models can find presuppositions moderately well, but struggle when predicting whether a presupposition is factually correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-30T18:54:49Z)
• Grow-and-Clip: Informative-yet-Concise Evidence Distillation for Answer Explanation [22.20733260041759]
  We argue that the evidences of an answer is critical to enhancing the interpretability of QA models. We are the first to explicitly define the concept of evidence as the supporting facts in a context which are informative, concise, and readable. We propose Grow-and-Clip Evidence Distillation (GCED) algorithm to extract evidences from the contexts by trade-off informativeness, conciseness, and readability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-13T17:18:17Z)

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.