Text-to-SQL systems typically assume a one-to-one mapping between natural-language queries and correct SQL translations. In practice, however, many queries are inherently ambiguous, admitting multiple valid interpretations that yield distinct outputs. We introduce Adversarial Intent Resolution (AIR), a multi-agent framework that actively probes and resolves such ambiguity without any task-specific training. AIR first constructs competing interpretations, verifies through SQL execution that they produce genuinely different results, and generates targeted clarification questions grounded in the observed data differences. Evaluating on leading benchmarks for ambiguous questions, AIR demonstrates strong performance, efficiency, and robust cross-benchmark transferability. On the AMBROSIA benchmark under schema-only context—a realistic production setting where exposing the full database is infeasible—AIR outperforms IntentRL, the state-of-the-art reinforcement learning model, across all metrics (e.g., F1 0.679 vs. 0.618). Crucially, AIR exhibits only ∼7% performance degradation without the full database, compared to ∼20% for IntentRL. On the AmbiQT benchmark, where ambiguity arises from schema design rather than linguistic structure, AIR achieves higher F1 under both context settings without any benchmark-specific adaptation.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate accurate and reliable responses that are grounded in retrieved context. However, LLMs often generate inconsistent outputs for semantically equivalent inputs, a problem exacerbated by limited consistency-focused data and the limitations of existing fine-tuning methods for improving consistency. We propose a new approach combining systematic synthetic data generation, triplet loss for better embeddings, and a novel layer-wise model merging approach. Using consistency-aware weights derived from intermediate layer activations, our method effectively integrates knowledge from specialized models. Experimental results how that our merged model significantly enhances output consistency, achieving approximately 47.5% improvement in response similarity over the baseline, thus offering a practical solution for increasing the the reliability of an industrial RAG system.

In task-oriented conversational AI evaluation, unsupervised methods poorly correlate with human judgments, and supervised approaches lack generalization. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show robust zero- and few-shot capabilities across NLP tasks. Our paper explores using LLMs for automated dialogue quality evaluation, experimenting with various configurations on public and proprietary datasets. Manipulating factors such as model size, in-context examples, and selection techniques, we examine “chain-of-thought” (CoT) reasoning and label extraction procedures. Our results show that (1) larger models yield more accurate dialogue labels; (2) algorithmic selection of in-context examples outperforms random selection,; (3) CoT reasoning where an LLM is asked to provide justifications before outputting final labels improves performance; and (4) fine-tuned LLMs outperform out-of-the-box ones. In addition, we find that suitably tuned LLMs exhibit high accuracy in dialogue evaluation compared to human judgments.