The DOI matches its DataCite record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selectively Answering Ambiguous Questions
Open accessAbstract
Trustworthy language models should abstain from answering questions when they do not know the answer. However, the answer to a question can be unknown for a variety of reasons. Prior research has focused on the case in which the question is clear and the answer is unambiguous but possibly unknown, but the answer to a question can also be unclear due to uncertainty of the questioner's intent or context. We investigate question answering from this perspective, focusing on answering a subset of questions with a high degree of accuracy, from a set of questions in which many are inherently ambiguous. In this setting, we find that the most reliable approach to decide when to abstain involves quantifying repetition within sampled model outputs, rather than the model's likelihood or self-verification as used in prior work. We find this to be the case across different types of uncertainty and model scales,and with or without instruction tuning. Our results suggest that sampling-based confidence scores help calibrate answers to relatively unambiguous questions, with more dramatic improvements on ambiguous questions.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Prior works have leveraged reinforcement learning (Xu et al., 2024), conformal abstention (Yadkori et al., 2024), or likelihood score and entropy-based metrics (Cole et al., 2023) to guide refusal decisions.”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Cole et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models
Chung, H. W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y., Fedus, W., Li, Y., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416 · Cited by 1,441
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829
Kuhn, L., Gal, Y., & Farquhar, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.09664 · Cited by 700
Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity
Lu, Y., Bartolo, M., Moore, A., Riedel, S., & Stenetorp, P. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.08786 · Cited by 615 · cited 1×
“In in-context learning, the choice of prompt and the order of exemplars can affect downstream performance (Lu et al., 2022).”
BackgroundAn optimum character recognition system using decision functions
Chow, C. K. (1957) · IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers · doi:10.1109/tec.1957.5222035 · Cited by 367
Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.05221 · Cited by 187
ASQA: Factoid Questions Meet Long-Form Answers
Stelmakh, I., Luan, Y., Dhingra, B., & Chang, M.-W. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.566 · Cited by 176
Self-citationMeister, C., Pimentel, T., Wiher, G., & Cotterell, R. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00536 · Cited by 137
Epistemic Neural NetworksPreprint
Osband, I., Wen, Z., Asghari, S. M., Dwaracherla, V., Ibrahimi, M., Lu, X., & Roy, B. V. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.08924 · Cited by 80
Navigating the Grey Area: Expressions of Overconfidence and Uncertainty in Language ModelsPreprint
Zhou, K., Jurafsky, D., & Hashimoto, T. B. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13439 · Cited by 78
Calibration of Encoder Decoder Models for Neural Machine TranslationPreprint
Kumar, A., & Sarawagi, S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.00802 · Cited by 71
Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.14334 · Cited by 59
Tomayto, Tomahto. Beyond Token-level Answer Equivalence for Question Answering Evaluation
Bulian, J., Buck, C., Gajewski, W., Börschinger, B., & Schuster, T. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.20 · Cited by 44
Model Cascading: Towards Jointly Improving Efficiency and Accuracy of NLP Systems
Varshney, N., & Baral, C. R. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.756 · Cited by 39
SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. J. F. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08896 · Cited by 38
Do Language Models Know When They’re Hallucinating References?
Agrawal, A., Suzgun, M., Mackey, L., & Kalai, A. T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.18248 · Cited by 37
CLAM: Selective Clarification for Ambiguous Questions with Generative Language ModelsPreprint
Kuhn, L., Gal, Y., & Farquhar, S. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.07769 · Cited by 8
Indices of Qualitative Variation and Political Measurement
Wilcox, A. R. (1973) · Western Political Quarterly · doi:10.1177/106591297302600209
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Aryaman Arora, Clara Meister, and Ryan Cotterell. 2022. Estimating the entropy of linguistic distri- butions. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 175-195, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Shrey Desai and Greg Durrett. 2020. Calibration of pre-trained transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 295-302, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Li Dong, Chris Quirk, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Con- fidence modeling for neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 743-753, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Ran El-Yaniv et al. 2010. On the foundations of noise- free selective classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11(5).
- Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 889-898, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Cornelia Gruber, Patrick Oliver Schenk, Malte Schier- holz, Frauke Kreuter, and Göran Kauermann. 2023. Sources of uncertainty in machine learning-a statisti- cians' view. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2305.
- Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Wein- berger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural net- works. In International conference on machine learn- ing, pages 1321-1330. PMLR.
- Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2020. The curious case of neural text de- generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Abhyuday Jagannatha and Hong Yu. 2020. Calibrat- ing structured output predictors for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2078-2092, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
- Zhengbao Jiang, Jun Araki, Haibo Ding, and Graham Neubig. 2021. How can we know when language models know? on the calibration of language models for question answering. Transactions of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, 9:962-977. · DOI · Paper page
- Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehen- sion. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2020. Se- lective question answering under domain shift. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 5684- 5696, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Volodymyr Kuleshov and Percy S Liang. 2015. Cali- brated structured prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28.
- Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Red- field, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Ken- ton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natu- ral questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, 7:452-466. · DOI · Paper page
- Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 6086-6096, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. 2023. Generating with confidence: Uncertainty quantifi- cation for black-box large language models. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2305.
- Clara Meister, Afra Amini, Tim Vieira, and Ryan Cot- terell. 2021. Conditional Poisson stochastic beams. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 664- 681, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Sewon Min, Julian Michael, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. AmbigQA: Answering am- biguous open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5783- 5797, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Jie Ren, Jiaming Luo, Yao Zhao, Kundan Krishna, Mo- hammad Saleh, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, and Pe- ter J Liu. 2023. Out-of-distribution detection and selective generation for conditional language mod- els. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Neeraj Varshney, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Investigating selective prediction approaches across several tasks in IID, OOD, and adversarial settings. In Findings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1995-2002, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- John M Zelle and Raymond J Mooney. 1996. Learn- ing to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the National Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1050-1055.
- Hugh Zhang, Daniel Duckworth, Daphne Ippolito, and Arvind Neelakantan. 2021a. Trading off diversity and quality in natural language generation. In Pro- ceedings of the Workshop on Human Evaluation of NLP Systems (HumEval), pages 25-33, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics.
- Michael Zhang and Eunsol Choi. 2021. SituatedQA: In- corporating extra-linguistic contexts into QA. In Pro- ceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7371- 7387, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Shujian Zhang, Chengyue Gong, and Eunsol Choi. 2021b. Knowing more about questions can help: Improving calibration in question answering. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1958-1970, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adaptation with Self-Evaluation to Improve Selective Prediction in LLMs
Chen, J., Yoon, J., Ebrahimi, S., Arik, S., Pfister, T., & Jha, S. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.345 · Cited by 13
MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Pandit, S., Xu, J., Hong, J., Wang, Z., Chen, T., Xu, K., & Ding, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14302 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Cole, J. R., Zhang, M. J. Q., Gillick, D., Eisenschlos, J. M., Dhingra, B., & Eisenstein, J.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 530-543
- arXiv
- 2305.14613
- OpenAlex
- W4389524305
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 3.37
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- question answering, ambiguous questions, abstention, confidence calibration, instruction tuning
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
