Papers › Asking Clarification Questions to Handle Ambiguity in Open-Domain QA

Asking Clarification Questions to Handle Ambiguity in Open-Domain QA

23 May 2023arXiv:2305.13808archive 2025-07-28

Dongryeol Lee, Segwang Kim, Minwoo Lee, Hwanhee Lee, Joonsuk Park, Sang-Woo Lee, Kyomin Jung

Ambiguous questions persist in open-domain question answering, because formulating a precise question with a unique answer is often challenging. Previously, Min et al. (2020) have tackled this issue by generating disambiguated questions for all possible interpretations of the ambiguous question. This can be effective, but not ideal for providing an answer to the user. Instead, we propose to ask a clarification question, where the user's response will help identify the interpretation that best aligns with the user's intention. We first present CAMBIGNQ, a dataset consisting of 5,654 ambiguous questions, each with relevant passages, possible answers, and a clarification question. The clarification questions were efficiently created by generating them using InstructGPT and manually revising them as necessary. We then define a pipeline of tasks and design appropriate evaluation metrics. Lastly, we achieve 61.3 F1 on ambiguity detection and 40.5 F1 on clarification-based QA, providing strong baselines for future work.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

dongryeollee96/askcq officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Open-Domain Question AnsweringQuestion Answering

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections