DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge
The rise of large language models (LLMs) has enabled us to seek answers to inherently debatable questions on LLM chatbots, necessitating a reliable way to evaluate their ability. However, traditional QA benchmarks assume fixed answers are inadequate for this purpose. To address this, we introduce DebateQA, a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions, each accompanied by multiple human-annotated partial answers that capture a variety of perspectives. We develop two metrics: Perspective Diversity, which evaluates the comprehensiveness of perspectives, and Dispute Awareness, which assesses if the LLM acknowledges the question's debatable nature. Experiments demonstrate that both metrics align with human preferences and are stable across different underlying models. Using DebateQA with two metrics, we assess 12 popular LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally excel at recognizing debatable issues, their ability to provide comprehensive answers encompassing diverse perspectives varies considerably.
Code (1)
Tasks
DiversityQuestion AnsweringRetrievalRetrieval-augmented GenerationMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
CBench: Towards Better Evaluation of Question Answering Over Knowledge Graphs
Recently, there has been an increase in the number of knowledge graphs that can be only queried by experts. However, describing questions using structured queries is not straightforward for non-expert users who need to h…
BenchmarkingKnowledge GraphsQuestion AnsweringHyper-dimensional computing for a visual question-answering system that is trainable end-to-end
In this work we propose a system for visual question answering. Our architecture is composed of two parts, the first part creates the logical knowledge base given the image. The second part evaluates questions against th…
Question AnsweringVisual Question AnsweringVisual Question Answering (VQA)Q^{2}: Evaluating Factual Consistency in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogues via Question Generation and Question Answering
Neural knowledge-grounded generative models for dialogue often produce content that is factually inconsistent with the knowledge they rely on, making them unreliable and limiting their applicability. Inspired by recent w…
Abstractive Text SummarizationNatural Language InferenceQuestion AnsweringQuestion Generation+1$Q^{2}$: Evaluating Factual Consistency in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogues via Question Generation and Question Answering
Neural knowledge-grounded generative models for dialogue often produce content that is factually inconsistent with the knowledge they rely on, making them unreliable and limiting their applicability. Inspired by recent w…
Abstractive Text SummarizationDialogue EvaluationNatural Language InferenceQuestion Answering+2MINTQA: A Multi-Hop Question Answering Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on New and Tail Knowledge
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various reasoning tasks but face significant challenges with complex, knowledge-intensive multi-hop queries, particularly those involving new or l…
Multi-hop Question AnsweringQuestion AnsweringQuestion GenerationQuestion-Generation+2