Beyond Supervised Clarification: Input Rewriting with LLMs for Dialogue Discourse Parsing

Draft-verify-revise is a common LLM orchestration pattern for scaling inference-time compute. One LLM drafts, a second critiques the draft and provides feedback, and a third uses that feedback to revise the draft into the final output. As context cascades between stages, LLMs at different stages can resolve a context-dependent expression such as "previous" differently. When that happens, the expression undergoes a deictic shift, a change in what it refers to. This phenomenon was studied with a synthetic dataset of 10 base examples, each rendered in three conditions. Holding the shared components constant, the conditions varied whether the draft stage LLM (the assistant) or the verify stage LLM (the grader) resolved the expression correctly, and how much independent reasoning the revise stage LLM (the meta-evaluator) needed to determine which reading was correct. Six models from three providers were tested across 21 reasoning effort configurations using e-values for sequential testing, in a primary experiment and an ablation experiment that removed error classification labels from the grader's feedback. A separate LLM analyzed the meta-evaluator's stated rationale for each wrong verdict. Balanced accuracy (the unweighted mean of sensitivity and specificity) ranged from 0.156, below chance, to near-perfect. GPT-5.2 rose from 0.156 without reasoning to 0.942 at its highest reasoning effort level, while Gemini 3 Pro stayed above 0.94 at every level. Gemini 3 Pro at low reasoning effort outscored GPT-5.2 at xhigh reasoning effort for roughly 5% of the cost per trial. When the meta-evaluator erred, it tended to rely on surface cues rather than operational reasoning. Context engineers implementing draft-verify-revise pipelines should be wary of deictic shifts and make the intended referent explicit at each stage.

LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct. We term this failure mode \emph{correction suppression} and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models. Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon. Mechanistic analysis reveals that suppression is not a knowledge failure: the model registers the error internally but task context diverts early-layer attention from the false claim as output intent crystallizes toward compliance at middle layers. We characterize this as \emph{knowing but not correcting} -- suppression occurs at response selection rather than knowledge encoding. Guided by this mechanism, we propose two training-free interventions. Correction Direction Steering (CDS) estimates a correction-compliance direction from matched pairs and injects it at middle layers before output intent crystallizes. Dynamic Payload Amplification (DPA) localizes payload tokens via attention divergence between early and late layers and amplifies their representation at the final layer, requiring no calibration data. Experiments on Qwen3.5-9B and LLaMA3.1-8B show both methods substantially improve factual strictness. CDS achieves the highest correction rate on Qwen3.5-9B (0%$\to$58.2%). DPA is the only method that preserves or improves reasoning capability on both models. These findings introduce \emph{factual strictness} -- the willingness to uphold accuracy against contextual pressures -- as a new dimension of model reliability.

Ambiguous user requests make clarification a sequential decision problem for conversational LLM assistants: they must decide whether to ask, what to ask, when to stop, and when to answer. We introduce RegretBench, a multi-turn benchmark that evaluates clarification as policy behavior rather than isolated question quality. RegretBench provides a hidden-intent formulation of ambiguity, supports free-form interaction grounded in semantic-state tracking, and introduces a regret-based objective that measures how much value a model loses relative to a reference clarification policy. Experiments on open-domain QA and product recommendation scenarios show that final success alone is insufficient, as models with similar accuracy can differ substantially in efficiency, robustness to user behaviors, and stopping decisions. By jointly measuring intent resolution, interaction cost, ineffective clarification, and regret, RegretBench reveals whether models clarify usefully and efficiently. Our results show that effective clarification requires more than plausible questions: models must ask the right question at the right time and stop once the user's intended meaning is clear.