Clarification Question Generation

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.

Natural-language instance navigation becomes challenging when the initial user request does not uniquely specify the target instance. A practical agent should reduce the user's burden by actively asking only the information needed to distinguish the target from similar distractors, rather than requiring a detailed description upfront. Existing approaches often fall short of this goal by mistaking distractors that strongly match the accumulated information about the target provided by the user. As a result, despite the dialogue, the agent may still fail to distinguish the target from distractors, leading to premature decisions and lengthy user responses. We propose Proactive Instance Navigation with Comparative Judgment (ProCompNav), a two-stage framework that first constructs a candidate pool and then identifies the target through Recursive Comparative Judgment (RCJ). RCJ iteratively narrows the pool by selecting an attribute-value pair that divides the candidates, asking the user a binary question, and removing inconsistent candidates, without requiring an attribute unique to the target. On CoIN-Bench, ProCompNav outperforms the evaluated baselines in Success Rate while substantially reducing Response Length. On the non-interactive TextNav benchmark, ProCompNav achieves the highest Success Rate. Two human studies further show that participants prefer ProCompNav's interaction strategies.

Large language models increasingly operate in interactive settings where solving a task requires multiple rounds of information exchange with a user. However, most current systems treat dialogue reactively and lack a principled mechanism to reason about what information is missing. We propose BALAR (Bayesian Agentic Loop for Active Reasoning), a task-agnostic outer-loop algorithm that requires no fine-tuning and enables multi-turn interaction between an LLM agent and a user. BALAR maintains a structured belief over latent states, selects clarifying questions by maximizing expected mutual information, and dynamically expands its state representation when the current one proves insufficient. We evaluate BALAR on three diverse benchmarks: AR-Bench-DC (detective cases), AR-Bench-SP (thinking puzzles), and iCraft-MD (clinical diagnosis). BALAR outperforms all baselines across the three benchmarks, with 14.6% higher accuracy on AR-Bench-DC, 38.5% on AR-Bench-SP, and 30.5% on iCraft-MD. We further study whether BALAR can serve as a teacher for a questioning policy through supervised fine-tuning (SFT), direct preference optimization (DPO), and dense-reward reinforcement learning (RL). Across 18 iCraft-MD replications, distilling BALAR into a Llama-8B yields relative gains in frozen-Qwen final-answer accuracy of 8.1% with SFT, 10.9% with DPO, and 12.1% with RL over the untuned policy.

Humans often specify tasks incompletely, so assistants must know when and how to ask clarifying questions. However, effective clarification remains challenging in software engineering tasks as not all missing information is equally valuable, and questions must target information users can realistically provide. We study clarification in real software engineering tasks by quantifying which types of information most affect task success and which questions elicit useful responses from simulated users. Using Shapley attribution and distributional comparisons, we identify two key properties of effective clarification: task relevance (which information predicts success) and user answerability (what users can realistically provide). We operationalize these properties as multi-stage reinforcement learning rewards to train CLARITI, an 8B-parameter clarification module, that matches GPT-5's resolution rate on underspecified issues while generating 41% fewer questions. Our results suggest that grounding reward design in empirical analysis of information impact and user answerability improves clarification efficiency.

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has enhanced tabular question answering (Tabular QA), yet they struggle with open-domain queries exhibiting underspecified or uncertain expressions. To address this, we introduce the ODUTQA-MDC task and the first comprehensive benchmark to tackle it. This benchmark includes: (1) a large-scale ODUTQA dataset with 209 tables and 25,105 QA pairs; (2) a fine-grained labeling scheme for detailed evaluation; and (3) a dynamic clarification interface that simulates user feedback for interactive assessment. We also propose MAIC-TQA, a multi-agent framework that excels at detecting ambiguities, clarifying them through dialogue, and refining answers. Experiments validate our benchmark and framework, establishing them as a key resource for advancing conversational, underspecification-aware Tabular QA research.

We investigate the separation of literal interpretation from contextual inference in a collaborative block-building tasks, where an agent must resolve underspecified instructions using context. We adapt an existing two-speaker psycholinguistic paradigm into an interactive benchmark called Build What I Mean (BWIM). This setup contrasts a pragmatically cooperative speaker with one who is only literally reliable. In BWIM, models face underspecified instructions and must choose between making a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost. Evaluating several state-of-the-art LLMs, we find a clear dissociation between judgment and action. Although models successfully detect speaker unreliability in explicit confidence ratings, they fail to leverage this awareness when taking action. Instead of deploying efficient clarification strategies, models default to suboptimal behaviors. These include partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty. BWIM provides a controlled environment to evaluate online partner adaptation and contextual reasoning in interactive settings.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as medical triage and legal assistance, often as document-grounded QA systems in which a user provides a description, relevant sources are retrieved, and an LLM generates a prediction. In practice, initial user queries are often underspecified, and a single retrieval pass is insufficient for reliable decision-making, leading to incorrect and overly confident answers. While follow-up questioning can elicit missing information, existing methods typically depend on implicit, unstructured confidence signals from the LLM, making it difficult to determine what remains unknown, what information matters most, and when to stop asking questions. We propose InfoGatherer, a framework that gathers missing information from two complementary sources: retrieved domain documents and targeted follow-up questions to the user. InfoGatherer models uncertainty using Dempster-Shafer belief assignments over a structured evidential network, enabling principled fusion of incomplete and potentially contradictory evidence from both sources without prematurely collapsing to a definitive answer. Across legal and medical tasks, InfoGatherer outperforms strong baselines while requiring fewer turns. By grounding uncertainty in formal evidential theory rather than heuristic LLM signals, InfoGatherer moves towards trustworthy, interpretable decision support in domains where reliability is critical.

User feedback is essential for the success of mobile apps, yet what users report and what developers need often diverge. Research shows that users often submit vague feedback and omit essential contextual details. This leads to incomplete reports and time-consuming clarification discussions. To overcome this challenge, we propose FeedAIde, a context-aware, interactive feedback approach that supports users during the reporting process by leveraging the reasoning capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models. FeedAIde captures contextual information, such as the screenshot where the issue emerges, and uses it for adaptive follow-up questions to collaboratively refine with the user a rich feedback report that contains information relevant to developers. We implemented an iOS framework of FeedAIde and evaluated it on a gym's app with its users. Compared to the app's simple feedback form, participants rated FeedAIde as easier and more helpful for reporting feedback. An assessment by two industry experts of the resulting 54 reports showed that FeedAIde improved the quality of both bug reports and feature requests, particularly in terms of completeness. The findings of our study demonstrate the potential of context-aware, GenAI-powered feedback reporting to enhance the experience for users and increase the information value for developers.

Natural language database interfaces broaden data access, yet they remain brittle under input ambiguity. Standard approaches often collapse uncertainty into a single query, offering little support for mismatches between user intent and system interpretation. We reframe this challenge through pragmatic inference: while users economize expressions, systems operate on priors over the action space that may not align with the users'. In this view, pragmatic repair -- incremental clarification through minimal interaction -- is a natural strategy for resolving underspecification. We present PleaSQLarify, which operationalizes pragmatic repair by structuring interaction around interpretable decision variables that enable efficient clarification. A visual interface complements this by surfacing the action space for exploration, requesting user disambiguation, and making belief updates traceable across turns. In a study with twelve participants, PleaSQLarify helped users recognize alternative interpretations and efficiently resolve ambiguity. Our findings highlight pragmatic repair as a design principle that fosters effective user control in natural language interfaces.

Real-world visual question answering (VQA) may be context-dependent: an image-question pair could be under-specified, such that the correct answer depends on external information that is not observable in the image. In such cases, directly answering can lead to confident but incorrect predictions. We propose Clarify-or-Answer (CoA), an ask-or-answer agent that separately models the decision to ask or answer, and what to ask if needed. CoA first determines whether clarification is necessary; if so, it generates one or more clarification questions to iteratively enrich the context until ambiguity is resolved. To validate this framework, we introduce CONTEXTCLARIFY, a dataset of ambiguous VQA questions along with a contrast set of non-ambiguous questions. We further introduce GRPO-CR(Clarification Reasoning), a reinforcement learning approach that optimizes clarification question generation with multiple reward signals encouraging well-formed, focused, non-trivial questions that resolve ambiguity. Across three VLMs and three datasets, CoA achieves consistent improvements at both the module and system levels, with a single clarification turn providing substantial gains and recursive multi-turn execution offering modest additional improvements in select settings.