Do LVLMs Know What They Know? A Systematic Study of Knowledge Boundary Perception in LVLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19111v1
• Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:14:19 GMT
• Title: Do LVLMs Know What They Know? A Systematic Study of Knowledge Boundary Perception in LVLMs
• Authors: Zhikai Ding, Shiyu Ni, Keping Bi,
• Abstract summary: Large vision-language models (LVLMs) demonstrate strong visual question answering capabilities but are shown to hallucinate.<n>This paper investigates LVLMs' perception of their knowledge boundaries by evaluating three types of confidence signals.
• Score: 9.19183567561999
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large vision-language models (LVLMs) demonstrate strong visual question answering (VQA) capabilities but are shown to hallucinate. A reliable model should perceive its knowledge boundaries-knowing what it knows and what it does not. This paper investigates LVLMs' perception of their knowledge boundaries by evaluating three types of confidence signals: probabilistic confidence, answer consistency-based confidence, and verbalized confidence. Experiments on three LVLMs across three VQA datasets show that, although LVLMs possess a reasonable perception level, there is substantial room for improvement. Among the three confidences, probabilistic and consistency-based signals are more reliable indicators, while verbalized confidence often leads to overconfidence. To enhance LVLMs' perception, we adapt several established confidence calibration methods from Large Language Models (LLMs) and propose three effective methods. Additionally, we compare LVLMs with their LLM counterparts, finding that jointly processing visual and textual inputs decreases question-answering performance but reduces confidence, resulting in an improved perception level compared to LLMs.

Related papers

• Influential Training Data Retrieval for Explaining Verbalized Confidence of LLMs [2.626100048563503]
  Large language models (LLMs) can increase users' perceived trust by verbalizing confidence in their outputs.<n>We introduce TracVC, a method that builds on information retrieval and influence estimation to trace generated confidence expressions back to the training data.<n>Our analysis reveals that OLMo2-13B is frequently influenced by confidence-related data that is lexically unrelated to the query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T18:05:42Z)
• Gauging Overprecision in LLMs: An Empirical Study [5.359801516815977]
  This study is inspired by a different aspect of overconfidence in cognitive science called textitoverprecision.<n>In the generation phase, we prompt the LLM to generate answers to numerical questions in the form of intervals with a certain level of confidence.<n>In the refinement phase, answers from the previous phase are refined to generate better answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T14:02:21Z)
• Towards Fully Exploiting LLM Internal States to Enhance Knowledge Boundary Perception [58.62352010928591]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive performance across diverse tasks but often struggle to accurately gauge their knowledge boundaries.<n>This paper explores leveraging LLMs' internal states to enhance their perception of knowledge boundaries from efficiency and risk perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T11:11:09Z)
• Learning to Route LLMs with Confidence Tokens [43.63392143501435]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on several tasks and are increasingly deployed in real-world applications.<n>In high-stakes settings, it becomes vital to know when the output of an LLM may be unreliable.<n>We study the extent to which LLMs can reliably indicate confidence in their answers, and how this notion of confidence can translate into downstream accuracy gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T07:28:18Z)
• When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Quality [49.371218210305656]
  We propose CONfidence-Quality-ORDer-preserving alignment approach (CONQORD) It integrates quality reward and order-preserving alignment reward functions. Experiments demonstrate that CONQORD significantly improves the alignment performance between confidence and response accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T09:42:46Z)
• Enhancing Confidence Expression in Large Language Models Through Learning from Past Experience [41.06726400259579]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance across various downstream tasks. We propose a method of Learning from Past experience (LePe) to enhance the capability for confidence expression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T06:47:49Z)
• Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large Language Models [84.94220787791389]
  We propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps. Experiments show that FaR achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Error by 23.5%. FaR even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T01:37:23Z)
• LEMMA: Towards LVLM-Enhanced Multimodal Misinformation Detection with External Knowledge Augmentation [58.524237916836164]
  We propose LEMMA: LVLM-Enhanced Multimodal Misinformation Detection with External Knowledge Augmentation. Our method improves the accuracy over the top baseline LVLM by 7% and 13% on Twitter and Fakeddit datasets respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T08:32:27Z)
• When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation [66.01754585188739]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T04:57:19Z)
• What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know [13.939511057660013]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes.<n>To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated so that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct.<n>Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models' actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T22:21:04Z)
• Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs [60.61002524947733]
  Previous confidence elicitation methods rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning. This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for uncertainty estimation. We define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T17:31:44Z)

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.