CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Speech and dialogue systemsLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesAI in Service Interactions

Navigating Rifts in Human-LLM Grounding: Study and Benchmark

Open access
Shaikh, Omar, Mozannar, Hussein, Bansal, Gagan, Fourney, Adam, Horvitz, Eric·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2503.13975arXiv 2503.13975
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Language models excel at following instructions but often struggle with the collaborative aspects of conversation that humans naturally employ. This limitation in grounding -- the process by which conversation participants establish mutual understanding -- can lead to outcomes ranging from frustrated users to serious consequences in high-stakes scenarios. To systematically study grounding challenges in human-LLM interactions, we analyze logs from three human-assistant datasets: WildChat, MultiWOZ, and Bing Chat. We develop a taxonomy of grounding acts and build models to annotate and forecast grounding behavior. Our findings reveal significant differences in human-human and human-LLM grounding: LLMs were three times less likely to initiate clarification and sixteen times less likely to provide follow-up requests than humans. Additionally, we find that early grounding failures predict later interaction breakdowns. Building on these insights, we introduce Rifts, a benchmark derived from publicly available LLM interaction data containing situations where LLMs fail to initiate grounding. We note that current frontier models perform poorly on Rifts, highlighting the need to reconsider how we train and prompt LLMs for human interaction. To this end, we develop a preliminary intervention aimed at mitigating grounding failures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.13975

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Shaikh et al. (2025) introduces seven categories of user responses, and five of these categories could be mapped back to the five feedback types from Don-Yehiya et al. (2024).

    “Shaikh et al. (2025) introduces seven categories of user responses, and five of these categories could be mapped back to the five feedback types from Don-Yehiya et al. (2024).”

    From User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal (2025) · cites this paper as Shaikh et al., 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The remaining two categories, 'Next Turns' and 'Follow-ups', do not belong in feedback.

    “The remaining two categories, 'Next Turns' and 'Follow-ups', do not belong in feedback.”

    From User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal (2025) · cites this paper as Shaikh et al., 2025

    Section 3.3 (p. 4) places Next Turns and Follow-ups under “Advancing Acts,” supporting their classification as grounding acts. It does not say that they cannot belong in feedback; the claim’s exclusion from feedback is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Shaikh et al. observed that LLMs significantly lack in generating follow-up questions in conversation logs.

    “Shaikh et al. [71] studied the degree of grounding ( i.e. , clarifications and follow-up questions) that LLMs perform in conversation logs and observed that they significantly lack in generating follow-up questions, where humans are 15 times more likely to do so.”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [71]

  • Humans are 15 times more likely to generate follow-up questions than LLMs.

    “Shaikh et al. [71] studied the degree of grounding ( i.e. , clarifications and follow-up questions) that LLMs perform in conversation logs and observed that they significantly lack in generating follow-up questions, where humans are 15 times more likely to do so.”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [71]

  • Shaikh et al. (2025) frames this interaction as a natural language grounding task, where both human and LLM initiate grounding acts in a multi-turn nature.

    “Another concurrent work (Shaikh et al., 2025) frames this interaction as a natural language grounding task, where both human and LLM initiate grounding acts in a multi-turn nature.”

    From User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal (2025) · cites this paper as Shaikh et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. Gavin Abercrombie, Amanda Cercas Curry, Tanvi Dinkar, and Zeerak Talat. 2023. Mirages: On anthropomorphism in dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09800 . · arXiv
  2. Chinmaya Andukuri, Jan-Philipp Fränken, Tobias Gerstenberg, and Noah D Goodman. 2024. Star-gate: Teaching language models to ask clarifying questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19154 . · arXiv
  3. Cristian-Paul Bara, CH-Wang Sky, and Joyce Chai. 2021. Mindcraft: Theory of mind modeling for situated dialogue in collaborative tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1112-1125.
  4. Susan E Brennan. 2014. The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication , pages 201-225. Psychology Press.
  5. Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Iñigo Casanueva, Ultes Stefan, Ramadan Osman, and Milica Gaši´ c. 2018. Multiwoz - a largescale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for taskoriented dialogue modelling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) .
  6. Harry Bunt, Volha Petukhova, David Traum, and Jan Alexandersson. 2017. Dialogue act annotation with the iso 24617-2 standard. Multimodal Interaction with W3C Standards: Toward Natural User Interfaces to Everything , pages 109-135.
  7. Maximillian Chen, Xiao Yu, Weiyan Shi, Urvi Awasthi, and Zhou Yu. 2023. Controllable mixed-initiative dialogue generation through prompting. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) , pages 951-966, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael Jordan, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. 2024. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04132 . · arXiv
  9. Hyundong Cho and Jonathan May. 2020. Grounding conversations with improvised dialogues. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 2398-2413, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  10. Jennifer Chu-Carroll and Sandra Carberry. 1998. Collaborative response generation in planning dialogues. Computational Linguistics , 24(3):355-400.
  11. Herbert H Clark. 1996. Using language . Cambridge university press.
  12. Herbert H Clark and Edward F Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive science , 13(2):259294.
  13. Deborah Davis. 1982. Determinants of responsiveness in dyadic interaction. Personality, roles, and social behavior , pages 85-139.
  14. Doug Downey, Susan T Dumais, and Eric Horvitz. 2007. Models of searching and browsing: Languages, studies, and application. In IJCAI , volume 7, pages 27402747.
  15. Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Abhishek Sethi, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyag Gao, and Dilek HakkaniTur. 2019. Multiwoz 2.1: Multi-domain dialogue state corrections and state tracking baselines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01669 . · arXiv
  16. Daniel Fried, Nicholas Tomlin, Jennifer Hu, Roma Patel, and Aida Nematzadeh. 2022. Pragmatics in grounded language learning: Phenomena, tasks, and modeling approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08371 . · arXiv
  17. Yujian Gan, Changling Li, Jinxia Xie, Luou Wen, Matthew Purver, and Massimo Poesio. 2024. Clarqllm: A benchmark for models clarifying and requesting information in task-oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06097 . · arXiv
  18. Yifan Gao, Henghui Zhu, Patrick Ng, Cicero dos Santos, Zhiguo Wang, Feng Nan, Dejiao Zhang, Ramesh Nallapati, Andrew O Arnold, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Answering ambiguous questions through generative evidence fusion and round-trip prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 32633276.
  19. Jonathan Ginzburg and Robin Cooper. 2001. Resolving ellipsis in clarification. In 39th Annual Meeting of the Association-for-Computational-Linguistics , pages 236-243. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  20. Arthur C Graesser, Natalie K Person, and Joseph P Magliano. 1995. Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied cognitive psychology , 9(6):495-522.
  21. Herbert P Grice. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech acts , pages 41-58. Brill.
  22. Patrick GT Healey, Arash Eshghi, Christine Howes, and Matthew Purver. 2011. Making a contribution: Processing clarification requests in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse , pages 11-13. Citeseer.
  23. Patrick GT Healey, Matthew Purver, James King, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Greg J Mills. 2003. Experimenting with clarification in dialogue. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , volume 25.
  24. John Hewitt, Nelson F Liu, Percy Liang, and Christopher D Manning. 2024. Instruction following without instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14254 . · arXiv
  25. Joey Hong, Sergey Levine, and Anca Dragan. 2023. Zero-shot goal-directed dialogue via rl on imagined conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05584 . · arXiv
  26. Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 159166.
  27. Eric Horvitz and Tim Paek. 2000a. Conversation as action under uncertainty. In Proceedings of Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence . AUAI.
  28. Eric Horvitz and Tim Paek. 2000b. Deeplistener: harnessing expected utility to guide clarification dialog in spoken language systems. In Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP) , pages 226-229. Interspeech.
  29. Mathew Huerta-Enochian and Seung Yong Ko. 2024. Instruction fine-tuning: Does prompt loss matter? Preprint , arXiv:2401.13586. · arXiv
  30. Gail Jefferson. 1972. Side sequences. In D.N. Sudnow, editor, Studies in social interaction , pages 294-333. Free Press, New York.
  31. Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2022. Clam: Selective clarification for ambiguous questions with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07769 . · arXiv
  32. Tessa Lau and Eric Horvitz. 1999. Patterns of search: Analyzing and modeling web query refinement. In UM99 User Modeling: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference , pages 119-128. Springer.
  33. Mina Lee, Megha Srivastava, Amelia Hardy, John Thickstun, Esin Durmus, Ashwin Paranjape, Ines GerardUrsin, Xiang Lisa Li, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, et al. 2022. Evaluating human-language model interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09746 . · arXiv
  34. Stephen C Levinson, Stephen C Levinson, and S Levinson. 1983. Pragmatics . Cambridge university press.
  35. Belinda Z. Li, Alex Tamkin, Noah Goodman, and Jacob Andreas. 2023. Eliciting human preferences with language models. Preprint , arXiv:2310.11589. · arXiv
  36. Xiaolong Li and Kristy Boyer. 2015. Semantic grounding in dialogue for complex problem solving. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 841-850, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  37. Jessy Lin, Nicholas Tomlin, Jacob Andreas, and Jason Eisner. 2023. Decision-oriented dialogue for humanai collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20076 . · arXiv
  38. Diane J. Litman. 1985. Plan Recognition and Discourse Analysis: An Integrated Approach for Understanding Dialogues . Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
  39. Karen E. Lochbaum. 1998. A collaborative planning model of intentional structure. Computational Linguistics , 24(4):525-572.
  40. Michael Lu, Hyundong Justin Cho, Weiyan Shi, Jonathan May, and Alexander Spangher. 2024. Newsinterview: a dataset and a playground to evaluate llms' ground gap via informational interviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13779 . · arXiv
  41. Xing Han Lu, Siva Reddy, and Harm de Vries. 2023. The StatCan dialogue dataset: Retrieving data tables through conversations with genuine intents. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 2799-2829, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  42. Brielen Madureira and David Schlangen. 2023a. " are you telling me to put glasses on the dog?'contentgrounded annotation of instruction clarification requests in the codraw dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02377 . · arXiv
  43. Brielen Madureira and David Schlangen. 2023b. Instruction clarification requests in multimodal collaborative dialogue games: Tasks, and an analysis of the codraw dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14406 . · arXiv
  44. Sabrina J Mielke, Arthur Szlam, Emily Dinan, and YLan Boureau. 2022. Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibration. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 10:857-872.
  45. Sewon Min, Julian Michael, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Ambigqa: Answering ambiguous open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 57835797.
  46. Shrestha Mohanty, Negar Arabzadeh, Julia Kiseleva, Artem Zholus, Milagro Teruel, Ahmed Awadallah, Yuxuan Sun, Kavya Srinet, and Arthur Szlam. 2023. Transforming human-centered ai collaboration: Redefining embodied agents capabilities through interactive grounded language instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10783 . · arXiv
  47. Burt L Monroe, Michael P Colaresi, and Kevin M Quinn. 2008. Fightin'words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis , 16(4):372-403.
  48. Hussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, and Eric Horvitz. 2024. When to show a suggestion? integrating human feedback in ai-assisted programming. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 10137-10144.
  49. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:27730-27744.
  50. Tim Paek and Eric Horvitz. 2003. On the utility of decision-theoretic hidden subdialog. In ISCA Workshop on Error Handling in Spoken Dialogue Systems .
  51. Ashwin Paranjape and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Human-like informative conversations: Better acknowledgements using conditional mutual information. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 768-781.
  52. Soya Park and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2023. Thinking assistants: Llm-based conversational assistants that help users think by asking rather than answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06024 . · arXiv
  53. Tomislav Pejsa, Dan Bohus, Michael F Cohen, Chit W Saw, James Mahoney, and Eric Horvitz. 2014. Natural communication about uncertainties in situated interaction. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction , pages 283290.
  54. Matthew Purver, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Patrick Healey. 2003a. On the means for clarification in dialogue. Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue , pages 235-255.
  55. Matthew Purver, Patrick Healey, James King, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Greg J Mills. 2003b. Answering clarification questions. In Proceedings of the Fourth SIGdial Workshop of Discourse and Dialogue , pages 23-33.
  56. Matthew Richard John Purver. 2004. The theory and use of clarification requests in dialogue . Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
  57. Filip Radlinski and Thorsten Joachims. 2005. Query chains: learning to rank from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining , pages 239-248.
  58. Hossein A Rahmani, Xi Wang, Yue Feng, Qiang Zhang, Emine Yilmaz, and Aldo Lipani. 2023. A survey on asking clarification questions datasets in conversational systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15933 . · arXiv
  59. Osman Ramadan, Paweł Budzianowski, and Milica Gasic. 2018. Large-scale multi-domain belief tracking with knowledge sharing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume 2, pages 432-437.
  60. Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction , pages 755. Elsevier.
  61. Maarten Sap, Ronan LeBras, Daniel Fried, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Neural theory-of-mind? on the limits of social intelligence in large lms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13312 . · arXiv
  62. Emanuel A Schegloff. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American journal of sociology , 97(5):1295-1345.
  63. Emanuel A Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language , 53(2):361-382.
  64. Deborah Schiffrin. 1987. Discourse markers . 5. Cambridge University Press.
  65. Phillip Schneider, Nektarios Machner, Kristiina Jokinen, and Florian Matthes. 2024. Bridging information gaps in dialogues with grounded exchanges using knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01088 . · arXiv
  66. Omar Shaikh, Kristina Gligori´ c, Ashna Khetan, Matthias Gerstgrasser, Diyi Yang, and Dan Jurafsky. 2024. Grounding gaps in language model generations. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 6279-6296.
  67. Omar Shaikh, Caleb Ziems, William Held, Aryan Pariani, Fred Morstatter, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Modeling cross-cultural pragmatic inference with codenames duet. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , pages 6550-6569, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  68. Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 31210-31227. PMLR.
  69. Zhengyan Shi, Adam X Yang, Bin Wu, Laurence Aitchison, Emine Yilmaz, and Aldo Lipani. 2024. Instruction tuning with loss over instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14394 . · arXiv
  70. Prasann Singhal, Tanya Goyal, Jiacheng Xu, and Greg Durrett. 2023. A long way to go: Investigating length correlations in rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03716 . · arXiv
  71. Svetlana Stoyanchev, Alex Liu, and Julia Hirschberg. 2013. Modelling human clarification strategies. pages 137-141.
  72. Alex Tamkin, Kunal Handa, Avash Shrestha, and Noah Goodman. 2022. Task ambiguity in humans and language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10711 . · arXiv
  73. David R Traum and Elizabeth A Hinkelman. 1992. Conversation acts in task-oriented spoken dialogue. Computational intelligence , 8(3):575-599.
  74. Polina Tsvilodub, Michael Franke, Robert D Hawkins, and Noah D Goodman. 2023. Overinformative question answering by humans and machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07151 . · arXiv
  75. Tomer Ullman. 2023. Large language models fail on trivial alterations to theory-of-mind tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08399 . · arXiv
  76. Priyan Vaithilingam, Ian Arawjo, and Elena L Glassman. 2024. Imagining a future of designing with ai: Dynamic grounding, constructive negotiation, and sustainable motivation. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference , pages 289-300.
  77. Joseph Weizenbaum. 1966. Eliza-a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM , 9(1):36-45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen. 2020. Multiwoz 2.2: A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, ACL 2020 , pages 109-117.
  79. Michael JQ Zhang and Eunsol Choi. 2023. Clarify when necessary: Resolving ambiguity through interaction with lms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09469 . · arXiv
  80. Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yuntian Deng. 2024. Wildchat: 1m chatgpt interaction logs in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01470 . · arXiv
  81. Pei Zhou, Hyundong Cho, Pegah Jandaghi, Dong-Ho Lee, Bill Yuchen Lin, Jay Pujara, and Xiang Ren. 2022. Reflect, not reflex: Inference-based common ground improves dialogue response quality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09267 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaikh, O., Mozannar, H., Bansal, G., Fourney, A., & Horvitz, E.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2503.13975
arXiv
2503.13975
OpenAlex
W6910468919
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
conversational grounding, clarification requests, MultiWOZ, Bing Chat

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