Diversity is Not Ambiguity: Toward Accurate and Efficient Ambiguity Detection for Open-Domain QA

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03177v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 06:13:41 GMT
• Title: Diversity is Not Ambiguity: Toward Accurate and Efficient Ambiguity Detection for Open-Domain QA
• Abstract summary: We propose ARCHIVE, a framework that detects ambiguity via logical conflict.<n>ARCHIVE combines a lightweight early-exit encoder for surface-detectable cases with a conflict reasoning module.<n> Experiments show ARCHIVE outperforms competitors, improving F1-amb by up to 10.4% and F1-unamb by up to 21.6%.
• Score: 20.772897408550275
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: How can question answering (QA) systems determine whether a query is ambiguous? Ambiguity detection is essential in open-domain QA, as misclassification leads to answering the wrong interpretation or unnecessary clarification. However, existing methods conflate answer diversity with ambiguity, leading to inaccurate predictions. They also process queries uniformly, resulting in wasteful computation. We propose ARCHIVE (Ambiguity Recognition via Cascaded Hypothesis Inspection and Conflict Verification), an accurate and efficient framework that detects ambiguity via logical conflict: a query is ambiguous when its valid answers cannot all be true under a single interpretation. ARCHIVE combines a lightweight early-exit encoder for surface-detectable cases with a conflict reasoning module that models logical relations among answers, reinforced by an invariance objective for robustness to noisy answer sets. We present QuireQA, a 4,703-query benchmark spanning factoid, non-factoid, and ill-formed queries. Experiments show ARCHIVE outperforms competitors, improving F1-amb by up to 10.4% and F1-unamb by up to 21.6%, while operating 16$\times$ faster than the best competitor.

Related papers

• From Answers to Interpretations: Rethinking Ambiguity-Induced Aleatoric Uncertainty Estimation in LLMs [23.112451416460825]
  In language tasks, a central source of such aleatoric uncertainty is input ambiguity or underspecification.<n>Existing decomposition methods estimate aleatoric uncertainty by generating multiple clarifications of the input, querying the model for an answer under each clarification, and comparing the resulting answers.<n>We propose a clarification-only approach that estimates this ambiguity-induced component directly from the space of plausible interpretations, without answers to the clarified inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T23:00:52Z)
• Beyond Semantic Equivalence: Logical Graphs for LLM Uncertainty Quantification [30.900501335481184]
  We propose Logical Graph Uncertainty (LGU), a framework that explicitly models implication and incompatibility among answers.<n>Across multiple question-answering benchmarks, LGU consistently improves uncertainty estimation over existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-18T16:14:08Z)
• Uncertainty as Feature Gaps: Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification of LLMs in Contextual Question-Answering [29.4458902836278]
  We introduce a task-agnostic, token-level uncertainty measure defined as the cross-entropy between the predictive distribution of the given model and the unknown true distribution.<n>We derive an upper bound for uncertainty and show that it can be interpreted as semantic feature gaps in the given model's hidden representations.<n>We apply this generic framework to the contextual QA task and hypothesize that three features approximate this gap: context-reliance, context comprehension, and honesty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T02:09:25Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Conflicting Evidence [57.66282463340297]
  Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly employing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to improve the factuality of their responses.<n>In practice, these systems often need to handle ambiguous user queries and potentially conflicting information from multiple sources.<n>We propose RAMDocs (Retrieval with Ambiguity and Misinformation in Documents), a new dataset that simulates complex and realistic scenarios for conflicting evidence for a user query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T16:46:11Z)
• CondAmbigQA: A Benchmark and Dataset for Conditional Ambiguous Question Answering [9.50840225852638]
  Conditional Ambiguous Question-Answering (CondAmbigQA) is a benchmark comprising 2,000 ambiguous queries and condition-aware evaluation metrics.<n>Experiments demonstrate that models considering conditions before answering improve answer accuracy by 11.75%, with an additional 7.15% gain when conditions are explicitly provided.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:01:51Z)
• Variability Need Not Imply Error: The Case of Adequate but Semantically Distinct Responses [7.581259361859477]
  Uncertainty quantification tools can be used to reject a response when the model is uncertain'<n>We estimate the Probability the model assigns to Adequate Responses (PROBAR)<n>We find PROBAR to outperform semantic entropy across prompts with varying degrees of ambiguity/open-endedness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T09:02:26Z)
• Certainly Uncertain: A Benchmark and Metric for Multimodal Epistemic and Aleatoric Awareness [106.52630978891054]
  We present a taxonomy of uncertainty specific to vision-language AI systems. We also introduce a new metric confidence-weighted accuracy, that is well correlated with both accuracy and calibration error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T04:23:54Z)
• Answering Ambiguous Questions via Iterative Prompting [84.3426020642704]
  In open-domain question answering, due to the ambiguity of questions, multiple plausible answers may exist. One approach is to directly predict all valid answers, but this can struggle with balancing relevance and diversity. We present AmbigPrompt to address the imperfections of existing approaches to answering ambiguous questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-08T04:32:17Z)
• Logically Consistent Loss for Visual Question Answering [66.83963844316561]
  The current advancement in neural-network based Visual Question Answering (VQA) cannot ensure such consistency due to identically distribution (i.i.d.) assumption. We propose a new model-agnostic logic constraint to tackle this issue by formulating a logically consistent loss in the multi-task learning framework. Experiments confirm that the proposed loss formulae and introduction of hybrid-batch leads to more consistency as well as better performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-19T20:31:05Z)
• Counterfactual Variable Control for Robust and Interpretable Question Answering [57.25261576239862]
  Deep neural network based question answering (QA) models are neither robust nor explainable in many cases. In this paper, we inspect such spurious "capability" of QA models using causal inference. We propose a novel approach called Counterfactual Variable Control (CVC) that explicitly mitigates any shortcut correlation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T10:09:05Z)

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.