Can LLMs Take Retrieved Information with a Grain of Salt?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06919v1
• Date: Thu, 07 May 2026 20:29:22 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Take Retrieved Information with a Grain of Salt?
• Abstract summary: Large language models' ability to appropriately adapt responses to certainty of retrieved information is underexplored.<n>It is a limitation with real consequences in high-stakes domains like medicine and finance.<n>We evaluate eight LLMs on their context-certainty obedience, measuring how well they adjust responses to match expressed context certainty.
• Score: 10.805155421027232
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models have demonstrated impressive retrieval-augmented capabilities. However, a crucial area remains underexplored: their ability to appropriately adapt responses to the certainty of the retrieved information. It is a limitation with real consequences in high-stakes domains like medicine and finance. We evaluate eight LLMs on their context-certainty obedience, measuring how well they adjust responses to match expressed context certainty. Our analysis reveals systematic limitations: LLMs struggle to recall prior knowledge after observing an uncertain context, misinterpret expressed certainties, and overtrust complex contexts. To address these, we propose an interaction strategy combining prior reminders, certainty recalibration, and context simplification. This approach reduces obedience errors by 25% on average, without modifying model weights, demonstrating the efficacy of interaction design in enhancing LLM reliability. Our contributions include a principled evaluation metric, empirical insights into LLMs' uncertainty handling, and a portable strategy to improve context-certainty obedience across diverse LLMs.

Related papers

• Drawing the Line: Enhancing Trustworthiness of MLLMs Through the Power of Refusal [21.342265570934995]
  Existing methods have largely overlooked the importance of refusal responses as a means of enhancing MLLMs reliability.<n>We present the Information Boundary-aware Learning Framework (InBoL), a novel approach that empowers MLLMs to refuse to answer user queries when encountering insufficient information.<n>This framework introduces a comprehensive data generation pipeline and tailored training strategies to improve the model's ability to deliver appropriate refusal responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T14:17:14Z)
• A Survey on Uncertainty Quantification of Large Language Models: Taxonomy, Open Research Challenges, and Future Directions [9.045698110081686]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate plausible, factually-incorrect responses, which are expressed with striking confidence.<n>Previous work has shown that hallucinations and other non-factual responses generated by LLMs can be detected by examining the uncertainty of the LLM in its response to the pertinent prompt.<n>This survey seeks to provide an extensive review of existing uncertainty quantification methods for LLMs, identifying their salient features, along with their strengths and weaknesses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T06:56:01Z)
• 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.<n>This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt.<n>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)
• Is Factuality Enhancement a Free Lunch For LLMs? Better Factuality Can Lead to Worse Context-Faithfulness [39.74642729786543]
  We argue that current factuality enhancement methods can significantly undermine context-faithfulness of large language models (LLMs) Experiments reveal that while these methods may yield inconsistent improvements in factual accuracy, they also cause a more severe decline in context-faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T02:08:28Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge [35.067234242461545]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:40Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation [109.8527403904657]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) possess unwavering confidence in their knowledge and cannot handle the conflict between internal and external knowledge well. Retrieval augmentation proves to be an effective approach in enhancing LLMs' awareness of knowledge boundaries. We propose a simple method to dynamically utilize supporting documents with our judgement strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T16:46:10Z)
• Shifting Attention to Relevance: Towards the Predictive Uncertainty Quantification of Free-Form Large Language Models [27.491408293411734]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show promising results in language generation and instruction following but frequently "hallucinate" Our research introduces a simple redundancy: not all tokens in auto-regressive text equally represent the underlying meaning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-03T22:17:16Z)

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.