Don't Hallucinate, Abstain: Identifying LLM Knowledge Gaps via Multi-LLM Collaboration

Overview

• This paper proposes an approach to identify knowledge gaps in large language models (LLMs) by leveraging multiple LLMs in a collaborative manner.
• The key idea is to have LLMs abstain from answering questions when they are uncertain, rather than hallucinating responses, in order to surface their knowledge limitations.
• The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach through experiments on various datasets and tasks, showing that it can effectively identify gaps in LLM knowledge.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 have become incredibly powerful at generating human-like text, but they can also sometimes produce responses that are completely made up or incorrect. This is known as "hallucination." The paper "Mitigating LLM Hallucinations via Conformal Abstention" has explored ways to detect and mitigate hallucinations.

This new paper proposes a different approach - instead of trying to detect hallucinations, the authors suggest that LLMs should simply abstain from answering questions when they are not confident in their knowledge. The paper "Teaching Large Language Models to Express Knowledge Uncertainty" has looked at ways to teach LLMs to express uncertainty.

The key insight is that if an LLM abstains from answering, it can help surface the gaps in its knowledge. By getting multiple LLMs to collaborate and compare their responses, the paper shows that they can effectively identify areas where the models are uncertain or lack knowledge.

This approach could be very useful for understanding the limitations of current LLMs and identifying areas where further training or research is needed. The paper "Knowledge Conflicts in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey" has explored the broader issue of knowledge conflicts in LLMs.

Technical Explanation

The key technical contribution of the paper is a framework for identifying knowledge gaps in LLMs by leveraging multiple models in a collaborative manner. The core idea is to have each LLM abstain from answering questions when it is not confident in its response, rather than hallucinating an answer.

By comparing the abstention patterns of different LLMs, the authors show that they can effectively surface areas where the models lack knowledge or are uncertain. This is done through a two-stage process:

1. Calibration-Based Abstention: Each LLM is calibrated to abstain when its confidence falls below a certain threshold, using techniques like temperature scaling.

2. Multi-LLM Collaboration: The abstention patterns of multiple calibrated LLMs are then compared to identify questions where there is high disagreement or uncertainty, indicating a potential knowledge gap.

The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach through experiments on various datasets and tasks, including open-ended QA, factual verification, and commonsense reasoning. They show that their framework can effectively surface meaningful knowledge gaps that are not captured by standard evaluation metrics.

Critical Analysis

The authors acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research in their paper. For example, the calibration process relies on access to model confidence scores, which may not be available for all LLMs. Additionally, the approach assumes that LLMs have well-calibrated confidence estimates, which may not always be the case.

Another potential concern is that the multi-LLM collaboration approach may be computationally expensive, as it requires running multiple LLMs on the same set of questions. This could limit its scalability, especially for large-scale evaluations.

The paper also does not address the potential for bias or systematic errors in the LLMs themselves, which could lead to consistent knowledge gaps across models. The paper "Knowledge Verification to Nip Hallucination in the Bud" has explored related issues around verifying the knowledge of LLMs.

Overall, the proposed framework is a promising approach for surfacing knowledge gaps in LLMs, but further research is needed to address its limitations and ensure its robustness in real-world applications.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel framework for identifying knowledge gaps in large language models (LLMs) by leveraging multiple LLMs in a collaborative manner. The key idea is to have each LLM abstain from answering questions when it is not confident, rather than hallucinating responses, in order to surface areas where the models lack knowledge or are uncertain.

The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach through extensive experiments, showing that it can identify meaningful knowledge gaps that are not captured by standard evaluation metrics. This has important implications for understanding the limitations of current LLMs and guiding future research and development efforts in the field.

While the proposed framework has some limitations, it represents a significant step forward in the quest to build more transparent and reliable language models that can better express the boundaries of their knowledge. As LLMs become increasingly pervasive, techniques like this will be crucial for ensuring their safe and responsible deployment.