arXiv:2608. 13484v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 19355v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used with external knowledge sources like the internet.
arXiv:2606. 20245v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across a wide range of language-based tasks by leveraging both extensive parametric knowledge and in-context learning ability, enabling them to incorporate external information provided in the input prompt.
arXiv:2603. 28371v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: When an agent can articulate why something works, we typically take this as evidence of genuine understanding.
arXiv:2607. 01690v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Finetuning a language model on documents that are explicitly annotated as fictional results in a model that still actually believes the documents' core claims, an effect known as Negation Neglect.
arXiv:2606. 23695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Models in external knowledge, yet current evaluations rely on discrete heuristics that suffer from ''epistemic blindness'' - failing to distinguish genuine contextual information extraction from parametric memory recall.
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled sophisticated reasoning and content generation, yet their inherent stochasticity poses significant challenges for ensuring predictive credibility. While traditional uncertainty taxonomy paradigms, such as the dichotomy of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, provide conceptual foundations, they often fail to capture the multi-component and multi-stage nature of LLM generation and struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of various Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods.