How can question answering (QA) systems determine whether a query is ambiguous? Ambiguity detection is essential in open-domain QA, as misclassification leads to answering the wrong interpretation or unnecessary clarification. However, existing methods conflate answer diversity with ambiguity, leading to inaccurate predictions. They also process queries uniformly, resulting in wasteful computation. We propose ARCHIVE (Ambiguity Recognition via Cascaded Hypothesis Inspection and Conflict Verification), an accurate and efficient framework that detects ambiguity via logical conflict: a query is ambiguous when its valid answers cannot all be true under a single interpretation. ARCHIVE combines a lightweight early-exit encoder for surface-detectable cases with a conflict reasoning module that models logical relations among answers, reinforced by an invariance objective for robustness to noisy answer sets. We present QuireQA, a 4,703-query benchmark spanning factoid, non-factoid, and ill-formed queries. Experiments show ARCHIVE outperforms competitors, improving F1-amb by up to 10.4% and F1-unamb by up to 21.6%, while operating 16× faster than the best competitor.
User queries are often underspecified and may admit multiple valid interpretations. Rather than silently making assumptions about the user's intent, a helpful assistant should surface such ambiguity by asking a clarifying question. Doing so requires two abilities: recognizing that a query is ambiguous, and acting on that recognition by seeking clarification instead of answering directly. To study these abilities, we evaluate models on ambiguous, unambiguous, and disambiguated questions in three settings: standard question answering, explicit ambiguity judgment, and behavioral analysis, where a judge model classifies responses as direct answers, refusals, or clarifying questions. We find a clear gap between recognition and behavior: models often identify ambiguity when explicitly asked to judge it, yet in the QA setting they overwhelmingly default to direct answers. Retrieved context further widens this gap by improving answerability while making models even less likely to ask clarifying questions.
Document-based question answering (QA) increasingly includes abstract questions that require synthesizing scattered information from long documents or across multiple documents into coherent answers. However, this setting is still poorly supported by existing benchmarks and evaluation methods, which often lack stable abstract references or rely on coarse similarity metrics and unstable head-to-head comparisons. To alleviate this issue, we introduce ASTRA-QA, a benchmark for AbSTRAct Question Answering over documents. ASTRA-QA contains 869 QA instances over academic papers and news documents, covering five abstract question types and three controlled retrieval scopes. Each instance is equipped with explicit evaluation annotations, including answer topic sets, curated unsupported topics, and aligned evidence. Building on these annotations, ASTRA-QA assesses whether answers cover required key points and avoid unsupported content by directly scoring topic coverage and curated unsupported content, enabling scalable evaluation without exhaustive head-to-head comparisons. Experiments with representative Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) methods spanning vanilla, graph-based, and hierarchical retrieval settings show that ASTRA-QA provides reference-grounded diagnostics for coverage, hallucination, and retrieval-scope robustness. Our dataset and code are available at https://xinyangsally.github.io/astra-benchmark.
Reliable evaluation of open-ended question answering remains a bottleneck for measuring answer correctness of modern LLMs. Unlike multiple-choice tasks, free-form answers may be correct in many surface forms and may fail in qualitatively different ways, including incompleteness, contradiction, overgeneration, and endorsement of false premises. Existing judgment-based and similarity-based metrics often collapse these distinctions. We address this gap with three reusable contributions. First, we introduce a semantic correctness taxonomy that assigns open-ended answers to eight ordered classes, separating verbose-but-correct answers from those contaminated by hallucinated content. Second, we release CAP-Correctness, an 8.8k-example benchmark spanning widely used QA datasets, and CAP-Statements, an 11k-example dataset for converting question-answer pairs into declarative statements for natural language inference (NLI) training and statement-based evaluation. Third, we introduce CAP (Context-Aware Precision), a reference-based metric that scores question-conditioned statements using bidirectional NLI. Under a monotonicity protocol testing whether metrics respect the taxonomy's intended ordering, CAP outperforms established baselines.