Sources

542 sources

Source

Yin et al. (2023)

Do Large Language Models Know What They Don’t Know?

Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, 8653-8665

Find It

DOI

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have a wealth of knowledge that allows them to excel in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Current research focuses on enhancing their performance within their existing knowledge. Despite their vast knowledge, LLMs are still limited by the amount of information they can accommodate and comprehend. Therefore, the ability to understand their own limitations on the unknows, referred to as self-knowledge, is of paramount importance. This study aims to evaluate LLMs’ self-knowledge by assessing their ability to identify unanswerable or unknowable questions. We introduce an automated methodology to detect uncertainty in the responses of these models, providing a novel measure of their self-knowledge. We further introduce a unique dataset, SelfAware, consisting of unanswerable questions from five diverse categories and their answerable counterparts. Our extensive analysis, involving 20 LLMs including GPT-3, InstructGPT, and LLaMA, discovering an intrinsic capacity for self-knowledge within these models. Moreover, we demonstrate that in-context learning and instruction tuning can further enhance this self-knowledge. Despite this promising insight, our findings also highlight a considerable gap between the capabilities of these models and human proficiency in recognizing the limits of their knowledge.

Reference

Yin, Z., Sun, Q., Guo, Q., Wu, J., Qiu, X., & Huang, X. J. (2023, July). Do large language models know what they don’t know?. In Findings of the association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 (pp. 8653-8665).

What Rests on This

1 mechanism cites this source. Each finding below is quoted as it appears on that mechanism's own page.

Metacognitive Control Metacognition

  • Measured in AI

    The only documented human comparison found used the SelfAware set, which scores whether a model answers or declines unanswerable questions: GPT-4, the best of 20 models, reached F1 75.5, below both human volunteers (84.4 and 85.5), and other models scored lower, down to about 29

  • Measured in AI

    This comparison is approximate: only two people each answered a random 100-question sample in 30 minutes, the samples may not match GPT-4's, and the questions have no answer at all rather than one the person failed to recall; it still points one way, since every model fell at least 8.9 F1 points below both people and the paper describes no outside help for either side