Papers › ClarQ-LLM: A Benchmark for Models Clarifying and Requesting Information in Task-Oriented Dialog

ClarQ-LLM: A Benchmark for Models Clarifying and Requesting Information in Task-Oriented Dialog

9 Sep 2024arXiv:2409.06097archive 2025-07-28

Yujian Gan, Changling Li, Jinxia Xie, Luou Wen, Matthew Purver, Massimo Poesio

We introduce ClarQ-LLM, an evaluation framework consisting of bilingual English-Chinese conversation tasks, conversational agents and evaluation metrics, designed to serve as a strong benchmark for assessing agents' ability to ask clarification questions in task-oriented dialogues. The benchmark includes 31 different task types, each with 10 unique dialogue scenarios between information seeker and provider agents. The scenarios require the seeker to ask questions to resolve uncertainty and gather necessary information to complete tasks. Unlike traditional benchmarks that evaluate agents based on fixed dialogue content, ClarQ-LLM includes a provider conversational agent to replicate the original human provider in the benchmark. This allows both current and future seeker agents to test their ability to complete information gathering tasks through dialogue by directly interacting with our provider agent. In tests, LLAMA3.1 405B seeker agent managed a maximum success rate of only 60.05\%, showing that ClarQ-LLM presents a strong challenge for future research.

PaperPDFCode

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

Code

ygan/clarq-llm officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubjax 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.

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