arXiv Computation and Language By Elisabeth Kirsten, Nicole Kr\"amer, Muhammad Bilal Zafar

On Epistemic Diversity in Large Language Models

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces the concept of epistemic diversity for large language models (LLMs), defining it as the range of valid answers, explanations, and reasoning routes that an LLM presents to users. It argues that evaluating LLMs solely on accuracy or alignment is insufficient, especially when LLMs are used for knowledge-intensive tasks. The authors propose a preliminary framework for measuring epistemic diversity and demonstrate that leading LLMs often collapse large valid answer spaces into small canonical subsets, indicating epistemic narrowness.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Jun 2

KnowledgeBerg: Evaluating Systematic Knowledge Coverage and Compositional Reasoning in Large Language Models

arXiv:2604. 17621v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Many real-world questions appear deceptively simple yet implicitly demand two capabilities: (i) systematic coverage of a bounded knowledge universe and (ii) compositional set-based reasoning over that universe, a phenomenon we term "the tip of the iceberg.

By Xiao Zhang, Qianru Meng, Yongjian Chen, Yumeng Wang, Johan Bos
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Blind Men and the Elephant: Probing the Epistemic Myopia of LLMs under Long-Tail Divergent Knowledge

The paper introduces ElephantBench, a closed‑book knowledge probe with 1,094 multi‑account factual questions generated via an auditable graph‑based pipeline that pulls documents from a low‑exposure web corpus and identifies naturally occurring disagreements. Across 32 large language models, even the best model only recovers both divergent accounts on 52.4% of questions, and most models recall one account while omitting the other, indicating persistent epistemic myopia. The study shows that scaling model size and inference‑time reasoning improves recall but does not eliminate incompleteness, and that exposure imbalance in the corpus biases models toward the dominant account.

By Zhuoshi Pan, Junru Lu, Yan Qian, H. Vicky Zhao, Di Yin, Xing Sun
arXiv AI
Sep 7

From Answers to Interpretations: Rethinking Ambiguity-Induced Aleatoric Uncertainty Estimation in LLMs

The paper challenges the common practice of estimating aleatoric uncertainty in large language models (LLMs) by generating multiple clarified inputs and comparing the resulting answers. It argues that answers are unnecessary, costly, and can introduce epistemic leakage, proposing instead a clarification-only method that directly assesses ambiguity from the space of plausible interpretations. Experiments on three benchmarks show the new approach improves AUROC, reduces computational cost, and yields uncertainty estimates less correlated with epistemic uncertainty.

By Omer Nahum, Niv Nayman, Jonathan Fhima, Alon Zolfi, Jeremy Levy, Shai Mazor, Paolo Favaro