Output Elicitation

Information elicitation is an open-ended information-seeking problem in which an interaction can unfold in many potentially valuable directions, requiring an elicitor to continually determine which information to pursue as new information emerges. In agentic elicitation, these decisions may be delegated to a foundation model, yet how model choice shapes the resulting information-seeking behavior remains understudied. We study how judgments about information value vary across LLMs and how these differences shape sequential information seeking. We first examine these judgments across 11 LLMs spanning multiple model families and parameter scales, using a shared set of information and elicitation objectives. We then develop a controlled elicitation simulation in which different models encounter the same information space and use the same selection rule, isolating these judgments from question generation and respondent behavior. Using this setting, we characterize the breadth-depth behavior that emerges from model-specific information-seeking preferences over the course of elicitation. We further examine how interaction history changes the evaluation and subsequent selection of prospective information. We test the robustness and boundaries of these findings through sensitivity analyses and ablations over the opportunities available to the elicitor, the response labels used to operationalize information-seeking preferences, the presence of interaction history, and whether redundancy is explicitly relevant to the assessment. The project code, data, and trajectory files are available at https://github.com/infosenselab/open-elicitation.

Representation learning is often described as preserving the information in an input that is relevant for prediction. This work asks what relevance means for a fixed supervised decision problem. A representation is defined to be Bayes-sufficient for a joint distribution and loss if some prediction head can use it to implement a Bayes-optimal action rule. This makes the target information loss-dependent. In the almost-surely unique Bayes-action case, the relevant object is a Bayes quotient, which identifies inputs that require the same Bayes-optimal action. A representation is sufficient when it refines this quotient, and Bayes-minimal when it is informationally equivalent to it. The framework connects naturally to property elicitation: zero-one loss requires the Bayes class, squared loss the conditional mean, Brier loss the conditional probability in binary prediction, and log loss or strictly proper scoring rules the predictive distribution. Controlled finite experiments, learned neural bottleneck experiments, and a real-data iNaturalist taxonomic refinement experiment illustrate the distinction between sufficiency, minimality, and retained non-required information. For a fixed supervised problem, the distribution and the loss determine the Bayes action, the Bayes action determines the quotient, and the quotient determines the minimal information required for Bayes-optimal prediction.

High-quality expert chain-of-thought (CoT) data is one of the core bottlenecks in large language model (LLM) post-training. Existing data production methods each have structural limitations: crowdsourced annotation lacks deep reasoning paths; expert solo writing is constrained by the "expert blind spot" -- experts structurally skip reasoning steps they consider obvious; RLHF only produces preference signals rather than reasoning chains. This paper proposes the BC Protocol -- a structured dual-expert elicitation method for LLM post-training data production. The method carefully pairs a domain expert (crystallized intelligence) with a knowledge engineer (fluid intelligence), systematically externalizing the expert's implicit judgments as natural language reasoning chains. We introduce the Participant Aptitude Model, which defines six participant characteristic dimensions that affect elicitation quality. "Calibrated Ignorance" is an original concept proposed in this paper. We further propose "Selection-over-Prescription" as a methodological principle: for implicit knowledge elicitation tasks, investing quality-control resources in personnel selection yields a higher return than investing the same resources in process design. In a controlled experiment in the narrative fiction domain, we directly compared CoT produced by BC Protocol dual dialogue (Group A, (n=20)) against CoT written independently by the same domain expert (Group B, (n=20)). Three cross-vendor judge models -- GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro -- conducted blind evaluation across five dimensions (600 ratings total). Results show that the BC Protocol achieves an overwhelming advantage in "naturalness of reasoning process" (Group A mean 4.80 vs. Group B mean 1.30, (p=2.4\times10^{-8}), Cliff's (δ=1.0)).

Most conversational agents (CAs) are designed to satisfy user needs through user-driven interactions. However, many real-world settings, such as academic interviewing, judicial proceedings, and journalistic investigations, involve broader institutional decision-making processes and require agents that can elicit information from users. In this paper, we introduce Information Elicitation Agents (IEAs) in which the agent's goal is to elicit information from users to support the agent's institutional or task-oriented objectives. To enable systematic research on this setting, we present YIELD, a 26M-token dataset of 2,281 ethically sourced, human-to-human dialogues. Moreover, we formalize information elicitation as a finite-horizon POMDP and propose novel metrics tailored to IEAs. Pilot experiments on multiple foundation LLMs show that training on YIELD improves their alignment with real elicitation behavior and findings are corroborated by human evaluation. We release YIELD under CC BY 4.0. The dataset, project code, evaluation tools, and fine-tuned model adapters are available at: https://github.com/infosenselab/yield.

The departure of subject-matter experts from industrial organizations results in the irreversible loss of tacit knowledge that is rarely captured through conventional documentation practices. This paper proposes Expert Mind, an experimental system that leverages Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), large language models (LLMs), and multimodal capture techniques to preserve, structure, and make queryable the deep expertise of organizational knowledge holders. Drawing on the specific context of the energy sector, where decades of operational experience risk being lost to an aging workforce, we describe the system architecture, processing pipeline, ethical framework, and evaluation methodology. The proposed system addresses the knowledge elicitation problem through structured interviews, think-aloud sessions, and text corpus ingestion, which are subsequently embedded into a vector store and queried through a conversational interface. Preliminary design considerations suggest Expert Mind can significantly reduce knowledge transfer latency and improve onboarding efficiency. Ethical dimensions including informed consent, intellectual property, and the right to erasure are addressed as first-class design constraints.

We present Elenchus, a dialogue system for knowledge base construction grounded in inferentialist semantics, where knowledge engineering is re-conceived as explicitation rather than extraction from expert testimony or textual content. A human expert develops a bilateral position (commitments and denials) about a topic through prover-skeptic dialogue with a large language model (LLM) opponent. The LLM proposes tensions (claims that parts of the position are jointly incoherent) which the expert resolves by retraction, refinement, or contestation. The LLM thus serves as a defeasible derivability oracle whose unreliability is structurally contained by the expert's authority. Our main technical contribution is a mapping from Elenchus dialectical states to material bases in Hlobil and Brandom's NonMonotonic MultiSuccedent (NMMS) logic, satisfying Containment and enabling the elaboration of logical vocabulary that makes explicit the inferential relationships negotiated in the dialectic. We demonstrate the approach on the W3C PROV-O provenance ontology, where a single dialogue session elicits and structures design tensions that a domain expert can articulate, corresponding to decisions documented in a retrospective analysis of the ontology's design. Using pyNMMS, an automated NMMS reasoner, we verify that the structural properties of the resulting material base (nontransitivity, nonmonotonicity, and independence) correspond to specific PROV design rationales, demonstrating end-to-end integration from dialogue through formal reasoning.

Effective hiring is integral to the success of an organisation, but it is very challenging to find the most suitable candidates because expert evaluation (e.g.\ interviews conducted by a technical manager) are expensive to deploy at scale. Therefore, automated resume scoring and other applicant-screening methods are increasingly used to coarsely filter candidates, making decisions on limited information. We propose that large language models (LLMs) can play the role of subject matter experts to cost-effectively elicit information from each candidate that is nuanced and role-specific, thereby improving the quality of early-stage hiring decisions. We present a system that leverages an LLM interviewer to update belief over an applicant's rubric-oriented latent traits in a calibrated way. We evaluate our system on simulated interviews and show that belief converges towards the simulated applicants' artificially-constructed latent ability levels. We release code, a modest dataset of public-domain/anonymised resumes, belief calibration tests, and simulated interviews, at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/beyond-the-resume. Our demo is available at https://btr.hstu.net.

When designing compound AI systems, a common approach is to query multiple copies of the same model and aggregate the responses to produce a synthesized output. Given the homogeneity of these models, this raises the question of whether aggregation unlocks access to a greater set of outputs than querying a single model. In this work, we investigate the power and limitations of aggregation within a stylized principal-agent framework. This framework models how the system designer can partially steer each agent's output through its reward function specification, but still faces limitations due to prompt engineering ability and model capabilities. Our analysis uncovers three natural mechanisms -- feasibility expansion, support expansion, and binding set contraction -- through which aggregation expands the set of outputs that are elicitable by the system designer. We prove that any aggregation operation must implement one of these mechanisms in order to be elicitability-expanding, and that strengthened versions of these mechanisms provide necessary and sufficient conditions that fully characterize elicitability-expansion. Finally, we provide an empirical illustration of our findings for LLMs deployed in a toy reference-generation task. Altogether, our results take a step towards characterizing when compound AI systems can overcome limitations in model capabilities and in prompt engineering.