Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation

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 2402.11457 v2 pith:ZWJGTGME submitted 2024-02-18 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsretrievalaugmentationknowledgeoverconfidenceabilitybeenboundaries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge and tend to provide specious answers in such cases. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. However, due to the extra overhead and unassured quality of retrieval, it may not be optimal to conduct RA all the time. A straightforward idea is to only conduct retrieval when LLMs are uncertain about a question. This motivates us to enhance the LLMs' ability to perceive their knowledge boundaries to help RA. In this paper, we first quantitatively measure LLMs' such ability and confirm their overconfidence. Then, we study how LLMs' certainty about a question correlates with their dependence on external retrieved information. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence. Additionally, equipped with these methods, LLMs can achieve comparable or even better performance of RA with much fewer retrieval calls.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Evaluating and Calibrating LLM Confidence on Questions with Multiple Correct Answers

    cs.CL 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Existing confidence-calibration methods systematically understate LLM confidence on questions with multiple valid answers; a new benchmark and a sum-of-probabilities method (SCA) improve mixed-answer calibration.

  2. Rethinking LLM Parametric Knowledge as Post-retrieval Confidence for Dynamic Retrieval and Reranking

    cs.IR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Shifts in an LLM's hidden-state confidence, before and after a retrieved context, are used as a preference signal to fine-tune a reranker and to trigger retrieval only when initial confidence is low.

Pith tools