Do LLMs Know When to NOT Answer? Investigating Abstention Abilities of Large Language Models

Overview

• Investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to abstain from answering when they are uncertain or lack the necessary knowledge
• Focuses on LLM performance on science-related questions where abstention may be crucial to avoid generating incorrect or nonsensical responses
• Assesses different approaches for encouraging LLMs to abstain, including training them directly on abstention and using calibrated confidence thresholds

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are impressive AI systems that can generate human-like text on a wide range of topics. However, these models can sometimes produce responses that are incorrect or nonsensical, particularly on more specialized or technical subjects. This paper investigates the ability of LLMs to know when to abstain from answering - that is, to recognize when they are uncertain or lack the necessary knowledge to provide a reliable response.

The researchers focus on LLM performance in the context of science-related questions, where abstention can be crucial to avoid generating potentially harmful or misleading information. They explore different approaches for encouraging LLMs to abstain, such as training them directly on abstention and using calibrated confidence thresholds to determine when to withhold a response.

By better understanding the abstention abilities of LLMs, the researchers aim to improve the safety and reliability of these models, particularly in domains where incorrect information could have serious consequences.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by constructing a dataset of science-related questions, drawing from existing question-answering benchmarks and filtering for queries that require specialized knowledge. The researchers then evaluate the performance of several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3, T5, and BERT, on this dataset.

To assess the models' abstention abilities, the researchers explore two main approaches:

1. Direct Abstention Training: The researchers fine-tune the LLMs on a dataset that includes both answered and abstained responses, teaching the models to recognize when they lack the necessary knowledge to provide a reliable answer.

2. Confidence Thresholding: The researchers use the models' own confidence scores to determine when to abstain, setting calibrated thresholds to balance the trade-off between accuracy and abstention rate.

The results show that the LLMs often struggle to reliably abstain, frequently generating responses even when they lack the required knowledge. However, the researchers find that the direct abstention training and confidence thresholding approaches can significantly improve the models' ability to know when to abstain, reducing the likelihood of producing incorrect or nonsensical answers.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the safety and reliability of large language models. By focusing on the critical issue of abstention, the researchers highlight an important limitation of these models and explore potential solutions.

One potential limitation of the study is the reliance on a relatively small dataset of science-related questions. While this dataset serves as a useful testbed, the researchers acknowledge that the models' abstention abilities may vary across different domains and question types. Further research exploring a wider range of tasks and datasets would help to provide a more comprehensive understanding of LLM abstention capabilities.

Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying reasons why LLMs may struggle with abstention. Understanding the specific cognitive and architectural factors that influence a model's ability to recognize the limits of its own knowledge could inform the development of more robust abstention strategies.

Conclusion

This paper represents an important step in the ongoing effort to improve the safety and reliability of large language models. By investigating the models' abstention abilities, the researchers have highlighted a crucial aspect of LLM performance that requires further attention and development.

The findings suggest that with the right training approaches and confidence calibration, LLMs can be encouraged to abstain more effectively, reducing the risk of generating incorrect or potentially harmful responses. As LLMs continue to be deployed in an increasing range of real-world applications, this work underscores the importance of equipping these models with the ability to know when to refrain from answering, rather than attempting to provide a response regardless of their level of uncertainty or knowledge.