The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Answer-based Adversarial Training for Generating Clarification Questions
Abstract
We present an approach for generating clarification questions with the goal of eliciting new information that would make the given textual context more complete. We propose that modeling hypothetical answers (to clarification questions) as latent variables can guide our approach into generating more useful clarification questions. We develop a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) where the generator is a sequence-to-sequence model and the discriminator is a utility function that models the value of updating the context with the answer to the clarification question. We evaluate on two datasets, using both automatic metrics and human judgments of usefulness, specificity and relevance, showing that our approach outperforms both a retrieval-based model and ablations that exclude the utility model and the adversarial training.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“(Rao and Daumé III, 2019) allows the LLM to identify ambiguous questions and generate clarifying questions to pose to the user.”
From The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques (2024) · cites this paper as Rao and Daumé III, 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Sequence Level Training with Recurrent Neural Networks
Ranzato, M., Chopra, S., Auli, M., & Zaremba, W. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.06732 · Cited by 1,426
Learning to Ask: Neural Question Generation for Reading Comprehension
Du, X., Shao, J., & Cardie, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1123 · Cited by 696 · cited 1×
“Our clarification question generation model builds on the sequence-to-sequence approach that has proven effective for several language generation tasks (Sutskever et al., 2014; Serban et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2016; Du et al., 2017).”
Method
Cited by
The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques
Schulhoff, S., Ilie, M., Balepur, N., Kahadze, K., Liu, A., Si, C., Li, Y., Gupta, A., Han, H., Schulhoff, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.06608 · Cited by 118
Distilling Reasoning Capabilities into Smaller Language Models
Shridhar, K., Stolfo, A., & Sachan, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.441 · Cited by 79
Qi, P., Zhang, Y., & Manning, C. D. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.3 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Rao, S., & Daumé, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- arXiv
- 1904.02281
- References
- 3
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
