Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.09731 v2 pith:33GVP4AC submitted 2023-11-16 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords llmsknowledgequestionsuncertaintyoutsideparametricconfidenceexpress
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Can large language models (LLMs) express their uncertainty in situations where they lack sufficient parametric knowledge to generate reasonable responses? This work aims to systematically investigate LLMs' behaviors in such situations, emphasizing the trade-off between honesty and helpfulness. To tackle the challenge of precisely determining LLMs' knowledge gaps, we diagnostically create unanswerable questions containing non-existent concepts or false premises, ensuring that they are outside the LLMs' vast training data. By compiling a benchmark, UnknownBench, which consists of both unanswerable and answerable questions, we quantitatively evaluate the LLMs' performance in maintaining honesty while being helpful. Using a model-agnostic unified confidence elicitation approach, we observe that most LLMs fail to consistently refuse or express uncertainty towards questions outside their parametric knowledge, although instruction fine-tuning and alignment techniques can provide marginal enhancements. Moreover, LLMs' uncertainty expression does not always stay consistent with the perceived confidence of their textual outputs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLMs predict outcomes of real scientific experiments at 14-26% accuracy, comparable to human experts, but lack calibration on prediction reliability while humans demonstrate strong calibration.

  2. ASPI: Seeking Ambiguity Clarification Amplifies Prompt Injection Vulnerability in LLM Agents

    cs.CR 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Clarification-seeking in LLM agents amplifies prompt injection attack success from ~2% to over 30% across ten frontier models in a new 728-scenario benchmark.

  3. Learning from AVA: Early Lessons from a Curated and Trustworthy Generative AI for Policy and Development Research

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AVA is a specialized GenAI platform for development policy research that provides verifiable syntheses from World Bank reports and is associated with 2.4-3.9 hours of weekly time savings in a large-scale user evaluation.

  4. Confidence Calibration for Multimodal LLMs: An Empirical Study through Medical VQA

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A multi-strategy interrogation method with auxiliary expert assessment reduces expected calibration error by 40% on average across three medical VQA datasets for MLLMs.