Large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive performance across diverse tasks but often struggle to accurately gauge their knowledge boundaries, leading to confident yet incorrect responses. This paper explores leveraging LLMs’ internal states to enhance their perception of knowledge boundaries from efficiency and risk perspectives. We investigate whether LLMs can estimate their confidence using internal states before response generation, potentially saving computational resources. Our experiments on datasets like Natural Questions, HotpotQA, and MMLU reveal that LLMs demonstrate significant pre-generation perception, which is further refined post-generation, with perception gaps remaining stable across varying conditions. To mitigate risks in critical domains, we introduce Consistency-based Confidence Calibration (C³), which assesses confidence consistency through question reformulation. C³ significantly improves LLMs’ ability to recognize their knowledge gaps, enhancing the unknown perception rate by 5.6% on NQ and 4.9% on HotpotQA. Our findings suggest that pre-generation confidence estimation can optimize efficiency, while C³ effectively controls output risks, advancing the reliability of LLMs in practical applications.

As large language models (LLMs) become an important way of information access, there have been increasing concerns that LLMs may intensify the spread of unethical content, including implicit bias that hurts certain populations without explicit harmful words. In this paper, we conduct a rigorous evaluation of LLMs’ implicit bias towards certain demographics by attacking them from a psychometric perspective to elicit agreements to biased viewpoints. Inspired by psychometric principles in cognitive and social psychology, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching. Incorporating the corresponding attack instructions, we built two benchmarks: (1) a bilingual dataset with biased statements covering four bias types (2.7K instances) for extensive comparative analysis, and (2) BUMBLE, a larger benchmark spanning nine common bias types (12.7K instances) for comprehensive evaluation. Extensive evaluation of popular commercial and open-source LLMs shows that our methods can elicit LLMs’ inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines. Our attack methodology and benchmarks offer an effective means of assessing the ethical risks of LLMs, driving progress toward greater accountability in their development.

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.

Non-Factoid (NF) Question Answering (QA) is challenging to evaluate due to diverse potential answers and no objective criterion. The commonly used automatic evaluation metrics like ROUGE or BERTScore cannot accurately measure semantic similarities or answers from different perspectives. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been resorted to for NFQA evaluation due to their compelling performance on various NLP tasks. Common approaches include pointwise scoring of each candidate answer and pairwise comparisons between answers. Inspired by the evolution from pointwise to pairwise to listwise in learning-to-rank methods, we propose a novel listwise NFQA evaluation approach, that utilizes LLMs to rank candidate answers in a list of reference answers sorted by descending quality. Moreover, for NF questions that do not have multi-grade or any golden answers, we leverage LLMs to generate the reference answer list of various quality to facilitate the listwise evaluation. Extensive experimental results on three NFQA datasets, i.e., ANTIQUE, the TREC-DL-NF, and WebGLM show that our method has significantly higher correlations with human annotations compared to automatic scores and common pointwise and pairwise approaches.

Redundancy-aware extractive summarization systems score the redundancy of the sentences to be included in a summary either jointly with their salience information or separately as an additional sentence scoring step. Previous work shows the efficacy of jointly scoring and selecting sentences with neural sequence generation models. It is, however, not well-understood if the gain is due to better encoding techniques or better redundancy reduction approaches. Similarly, the contribution of salience versus diversity components on the created summary is not studied well. Building on the state-of-the-art encoding methods for summarization, we present two adaptive learning models: AREDSUM-SEQ that jointly considers salience and novelty during sentence selection; and a two-step AREDSUM-CTX that scores salience first, then learns to balance salience and redundancy, enabling the measurement of the impact of each aspect. Empirical results on CNN/DailyMail and NYT50 datasets show that by modeling diversity explicitly in a separate step, AREDSUM-CTX achieves significantly better performance than AREDSUM-SEQ as well as state-of-the-art extractive summarization baselines.

We describe Artemis (Annotation methodology for Rich, Tractable, Extractive, Multi-domain, Indicative Summarization), a novel hierarchical annotation process that produces indicative summaries for documents from multiple domains. Current summarization evaluation datasets are single-domain and focused on a few domains for which naturally occurring summaries can be easily found, such as news and scientific articles. These are not sufficient for training and evaluation of summarization models for use in document management and information retrieval systems, which need to deal with documents from multiple domains. Compared to other annotation methods such as Relative Utility and Pyramid, Artemis is more tractable because judges don’t need to look at all the sentences in a document when making an importance judgment for one of the sentences, while providing similarly rich sentence importance annotations. We describe the annotation process in detail and compare it with other similar evaluation systems. We also present analysis and experimental results over a sample set of 532 annotated documents.