The three clarification benchmarks differ substantially in size and ambiguity prevalence: PACIFIC is table-grounded financial QA, AbgCoQA is passage-grounded conversational QA, and AmbigNQ is ambiguity-heavy open-domain QA.

The three clarification benchmarks differ substantially in size and ambiguity prevalence: PACIFIC is table-grounded financial QA, AbgCoQA is passage-grounded conversational QA, and AmbigNQ is ambiguity-heavy open-domain QA. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/11 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 11

保留同一结论下的完整结果组。已有评估排在前面；单项判断不替代整组结论。展开行查看条件、来源与历次证据。

每行是一项测量，分别显示论文报告、最近可用实测和累计证据状态。
指标与条件	论文报告	最近可用实测	证据判断
split: train · dataset: PACIFIC	15,087 examples	—	尚未评估
split: fullval · dataset: PACIFIC	1,952 examples	—	尚未评估
dataset: PACIFIC	16%	—	尚未评估
split: fullval · dataset: PACIFIC	316 examples	—	尚未评估
split: fullval · dataset: PACIFIC	1,636 examples	—	尚未评估
split: train · dataset: AbgCoQA	7,269 examples	—	尚未评估
split: fullval · dataset: AbgCoQA	1,184 examples	—	尚未评估
dataset: AbgCoQA	22%	—	尚未评估
split: train · dataset: AmbigNQ	19,244 examples	—	尚未评估
split: test · dataset: AmbigNQ	4,377 examples	—	尚未评估
dataset: AmbigNQ	79%	—	尚未评估

The three clarification benchmarks differ substantially in size and ambiguity prevalence: PACIFIC is table-grounded financial QA, AbgCoQA is passage-grounded conversational QA, and AmbigNQ is ambiguity-heavy open-domain QA.

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果