Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate factually inaccurate content even if they have corresponding knowledge, which critically undermines their reliability. Existing approaches attempt to mitigate this by incorporating uncertainty in QA prompt during training, but these numerical scores lack the semantic richness for LLM to properly understand its internal states of trustworthiness and honestness, leading to insufficient factuality alignment. We introduce FAITH (Factuality Alignment through Integrating Trustworthiness and Honestness), a post-training framework for factuality alignment that integrates natural-language uncertainty signals with external knowledge. Specifically, we augment training datasets by computing confidence scores and semantic entropy from LLM outputs and mapping them into a knowledge state quadrant that describes the model’s internal knowledge possession (trustworthiness) and answering behaviors (honestness) in natural language. Based on this enhanced data, we design a reward function that considers both correctness and uncertainty signals, and fine-tune the LLM using the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithm. To further mitigate weakly grounded responses, we design a retrieval-augmented module that retrieves relevant external passages, improving the consistency between internal and external knowledge representations. Extensive experiments on four knowledge-intensive benchmarks demonstrate that FAITH enhances the factual accuracy and truthfulness of LLMs.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has enabled us to seek answers to inherently debatable questions on LLM chatbots, necessitating a reliable way to evaluate their ability. However, traditional QA benchmarks assume fixed answers are inadequate for this purpose. To address this, we introduce DebateQA, a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions, each accompanied by multiple human-annotated partial answers that capture a variety of perspectives. We develop two metrics: Perspective Diversity, which evaluates the comprehensiveness of perspectives, and Dispute Awareness, which assesses if the LLM acknowledges the question’s debatable nature. Experiments demonstrate that both metrics are aligned with human preferences and stable across different underlying models. Using DebateQA with two metrics, we assess 12 prevalent LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally excel at recognizing debatable issues, their ability to provide comprehensive answers encompassing diverse perspectives varies considerably.

As language models (LMs) exhibit increasingly consciousness-like behaviors, evaluating their cognitive abilities becomes essential. We introduce AwarenessBench, the first comprehensive benchmark for assessing the cognitive abilities of LMs in four dimensions: metacognition, self-awareness, social awareness, and situational awareness, covering 15 cognitive functions and 14,381 samples. Evaluating 18 state-of-the-art LMs, we find that all consistently surpass random baselines, with more advanced models performing better. We further compare LMs with human performance across three demographic groups, where the best-performing model surpasses human averages overall, but most still fall markedly short in metacognition and self-awareness. Finally, we show that awareness is a distinct capability: progress in language modeling or reasoning does not necessarily translate into improved cognition.