Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to meet user information needs, but their effectiveness in dealing with user queries that contain various types of ambiguity remains unknown, ultimately risking user trust and satisfaction. To this end, we introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs using a well-organized taxonomy. Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs.Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries, even enhanced by chain-of-thought (CoT) and few-shot prompting. These techniques may result in overconfidence in LLMs and yield only marginal enhancements in identifying ambiguity. Furthermore, current LLMs fall short in generating high-quality clarifying questions due to a lack of conflict resolution and inaccurate utilization of inherent knowledge.In this paper, CLAMBER presents a guidance and promotes further research on proactive and trustworthy LLMs.

With the aid of large language models, current conversational recommender system (CRS) has gaining strong abilities to persuade users to accept recommended items. While these CRSs are highly persuasive, they can mislead users by incorporating incredible information in their explanations, ultimately damaging the long-term trust between users and the CRS. To address this, we propose a simple yet effective method, called PC-CRS, to enhance the credibility of CRS’s explanations during persuasion. It guides the explanation generation through our proposed credibility-aware persuasive strategies and then gradually refines explanations via post-hoc self-reflection. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of PC-CRS in promoting persuasive and credible explanations. Further analysis reveals the reason behind current methods producing incredible explanations and the potential of credible explanations to improve recommendation accuracy.

Evaluating conversational information retrieval (CIR) systems is a challenging task that requires a significant amount of human labor for annotation. It is imperative to invest significant effort into researching more labor-effective methods for evaluating CIR systems. To touch upon this challenge, we take the first step to involve active testing in CIR evaluation and propose a novel method, called HomCoE. It strategically selects a few data for human annotation, then calibrates the evaluation results to eliminate evaluation biases. As such, it makes an accurate evaluation of the CIR system at low human labor. We experimentally reveal that it consumes less than 1% of human labor and achieves a consistency rate of 95%-99% with human evaluation results. This emphasizes the superiority of our method over other baselines.