On PACIFIC fullval, CIGAsk 7B reports the best overall F1, post-clarification F1, and ambiguous-query clarification rate in Table 2; CIGAsk 3B also exceeds all prompting and SFT baselines. Scaling CIGAsk from 3B to 7B raises F1, post-clarification F1, and ambiguous-query recall while also raising the clear-query false-positive rate from 0.179 to 0.260. Prompting and SFT expose negative behaviors: Direct and SFT never clarify, FATA clarifies every input and has low F1, and ReAct clarifies more often on clear than ambiguous inputs.

On PACIFIC fullval, CIGAsk 7B reports the best overall F1, post-clarification F1, and ambiguous-query clarification rate in Table 2; CIGAsk 3B also exceeds all prompting and SFT baselines. Scaling CIGAsk from 3B to 7B raises F1, post-clarification F1, and ambiguous-query recall while also raising the clear-query false-positive rate from 0.179 to 0.260. Prompting and SFT expose negative behaviors: Direct and SFT never clarify, FATA clarifies every input and has low F1, and ReAct clarifies more often on clear than ambiguous inputs. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/33 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 33

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
method: Direct · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0.312 score (0-1)	—	尚未评估
method: Direct · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0 proportion	—	尚未评估
method: Direct · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0 proportion	—	尚未评估
method: FATA · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0.177 score (0-1)	—	尚未评估
method: FATA · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0.177 score (0-1)	—	尚未评估
method: FATA · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	1 proportion	—	尚未评估
method: FATA · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	1 proportion	—	尚未评估
method: ReAct · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0.481 score (0-1)	—	尚未评估
method: ReAct · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0.418 score (0-1)	—	尚未评估
method: ReAct · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0.329 proportion	—	尚未评估
method: ReAct · backbone: Qwen2.5-7B	0.41 proportion	—	尚未评估
method: SFT · backbone: Qwen2.5-3B	0.543 score (0-1)	—	尚未评估

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果