Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09731v2
• Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:30:41 GMT
• Title: Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge
• Authors: Genglin Liu, Xingyao Wang, Lifan Yuan, Yangyi Chen, Hao Peng
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) express 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.
• Score: 35.067234242461545
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• MAQA: Evaluating Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs Regarding Data Uncertainty [10.154013836043816]
  We propose a new Multi-Answer Question Answering dataset, MAQA, consisting of world knowledge, mathematical reasoning, and commonsense reasoning tasks. Our findings show that entropy and consistency-based methods estimate the model uncertainty well even under data uncertainty. We believe our observations will pave the way for future work on uncertainty quantification in realistic setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-13T11:17:31Z)
• To Know or Not To Know? Analyzing Self-Consistency of Large Language Models under Ambiguity [27.10502683001428]
  This paper focuses on entity type ambiguity, analyzing the proficiency and consistency of state-of-the-art LLMs in applying factual knowledge when prompted with ambiguous entities. Experiments reveal that LLMs struggle with choosing the correct entity reading, achieving an average accuracy of only 85%, and as low as 75% with underspecified prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T09:48:48Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established. This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt. We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• Uncertainty-Based Abstention in LLMs Improves Safety and Reduces Hallucinations [63.330182403615886]
  A major barrier towards the practical deployment of large language models (LLMs) is their lack of reliability. Three situations where this is particularly apparent are correctness, hallucinations when given unanswerable questions, and safety. In all three cases, models should ideally abstain from responding, much like humans, whose ability to understand uncertainty makes us refrain from answering questions we don't know.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T23:56:38Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification [91.72588235407379]
  The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T14:29:17Z)
• Quantifying Uncertainty in Natural Language Explanations of Large Language Models [29.34960984639281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for high-stakes natural language processing (NLP) applications. We propose two novel metrics -- $textitVerbalized Uncertainty$ and $textitProbing Uncertainty$ -- to quantify the uncertainty of generated explanations. Our empirical analysis of benchmark datasets reveals that verbalized uncertainty is not a reliable estimate of explanation confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T21:14:40Z)
• Learn to Refuse: Making Large Language Models More Controllable and Reliable through Knowledge Scope Limitation and Refusal Mechanism [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive language understanding and generation capabilities. These models are not flawless and often produce responses that contain errors or misinformation. We propose a refusal mechanism that instructs LLMs to refuse to answer challenging questions in order to avoid errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T07:20:49Z)
• Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation [91.30946119104111]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) possess unwavering confidence in their capabilities to respond to questions. Retrieval augmentation proves to be an effective approach in enhancing LLMs' awareness of knowledge boundaries. We also find that LLMs have a propensity to rely on the provided retrieval results when formulating answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T16:46:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.