评测大模型在多轮对话中识别缺失信息并提问的能力。
Do LLMs Know What to Ask and When? Evaluating Multi-Turn Information Seeking

- 将多轮信息查询建模为k阶约束满足问题,量化信息缺失程度。
- 模型普遍低估所需信息量,且在逻辑题中误判达4倍于高估。
- 首次分离信息获取与答案生成,揭示现有评估的盲区。
当用户问题信息不全时,优秀模型应能识别上下文不足、定位缺失信息、提出恰当问题,并在获得足够信息后才作答。本文将多轮信息查询形式化为k-阶约束满足问题,其中k表示确定目标所必需的变量数,用以衡量信息缺失程度。我们构建了涵盖数学、逻辑、生物、医学和常识的MT-InfoSeek评估基准,包含5,251个问题和9,006个任务实例。从三个维度评估模型:问什么、何时问、获取信息如何影响最终答案。随着信息缺失程度增加,模型性能下降。模型虽能感知需额外信息,但普遍低估其数量;在逻辑问题中,当k=2时,误判缺失程度的频率是高估的四倍。模型无法识别最小必要查询集,即使已知真实k值也仅小幅提升,且常在信息不足时停止。在存在依赖顺序的任务中,错误的提问顺序会降低最终准确率,即使最终获取了所有必要信息。通过记录获取信息是否足以确定目标(即最终充分性),我们直接度量信息获取能力。这一分离揭示了模型间差异,而这些差异无法通过最终准确率捕捉,表明多轮信息寻求能力独立于答案生成能力,且未被现有大模型评估体系覆盖。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
When a user question is underspecified, a capable model should recognize that its context is insufficient, identify the missing information, ask for it, and respond only once that information determines a unique answer. We formalize multi-turn information seeking as solving a k-underspecified constraint satisfaction problem, where k is the number of variables jointly required to determine the target and therefore measures the degree of missing information. We instantiate the formulation in MT-InfoSeek, a controlled evaluation suite of 5,251 problems and 9,006 task instances spanning mathematics, logic, biology, medicine, and general knowledge. We evaluate models along three axes: what they ask, when they ask it, and how the acquired information affects the final answer. Performance degrades across models and domains as underspecification increases. Models recognize that additional information is needed but underestimate how much, and in logical problems at k = 2 they under-predict the degree of missing information about four times as often as they over-predict it. They also fail to identify a minimal sufficient set of queries, improve only marginally when given the true k, and often stop before acquiring sufficient information. In tasks with ordered dependencies, an incorrect query order reduces final accuracy even when the model eventually acquires all necessary information. We measure information seeking directly through final sufficiency, which records whether the acquired information determines the target independent of answer generation. This separation shows differences between models that final accuracy alone does not capture, and indicates that the ability to seek information over multiple turns is distinct from the ability to generate answers and is not measured by current LLM evaluations.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。