Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly require selective removal of harmful or sensitive knowledge, called unlearning, yet existing methods and benchmarks fail to evaluate this capability completely. Current approaches rely on disjoint forget and retain sets composed of independent facts, and measure success using simple and direct factual recall. This framing fails to capture a key requirement of unlearning, namely the ability to eliminate harmful behaviors while preserving benign and beneficial knowledge. We argue that effective unlearning must operate at the level of concepts, ensuring complete removal of unsafe applications while maintaining their correct and useful usage, thereby achieving conceptually meaningful and complete unlearning. To better evaluate unlearning techniques from such a practical viewpoint, we introduce the notion of dual-use concepts: concepts that can be used in both harmful and benign contexts. Building on these concepts, we construct a benchmark called ConceptGuard where forget and retain sets are explicitly complementary in concept usage. Our benchmark uniquely enables unlearning to be explored and gauged at the level of concepts, instead of sparse facts, and evaluation is intent-sensitive with the goal of maximizing contextual separation to promote safer behavior. We demonstrate that current unlearning techniques perform poorly under this setting, showing weak contextual separation alongside poor performance in ROUGE and concept-level metrics. Our results reveal strong forgetting-utility trade-offs, limited gains in contextual sensitivity, and poor consistency in concept-level control across methods, and provide ideas for unlearning approaches that better align with real-world safety requirements. Our dataset is publicly available.
Abstract:Reliable confidence estimation is essential for deploying large language models (LLMs) in confidence-aware systems, where downstream decisions such as retrieval, tool use, and adaptive computation depend on accurately estimating answer reliability. Existing approaches, however, largely treat confidence as a property of completed responses, overlooking how confidence-related information evolves throughout the answering process. In this work, we investigate confidence from a temporal perspective by comparing pre-solution Feeling-of-Knowing (FOK) and post-solution Judgement-of-Learning (JOL) confidence estimates across frontier and open-source LLMs. We show that post-solution confidence is consistently better calibrated and more discriminative than pre-solution confidence, while linear probes trained on hidden representations recover substantially richer confidence-related information than models explicitly verbalise. Building on this observation, we introduce future confidence distillation, which trains predictors operating on pre-solution hidden representations using teacher confidence estimates produced by post-solution correctness probes. Despite requiring only pre-solution representations for inference, distilled predictors recover much of the calibration improvement achieved by post-solution confidence, remain highly sample efficient, and transfer across datasets within the same domain. Together, our findings demonstrate that confidence-related information evolves throughout the answering process and can be anticipated before answer generation is complete, enabling significantly more reliable yet low-cost confidence estimation.
Abstract:Hallucinations, the generation of apparently convincing yet false statements, remain a major barrier to the safe deployment of LLMs. Building on the strong performance of self-detection methods, we examine the use of structured knowledge representations, namely knowledge graphs, to improve hallucination self-detection. Specifically, we propose a simple yet powerful approach that enriches hallucination self-detection by (i) converting LLM responses into knowledge graphs of entities and relations, and (ii) using these graphs to estimate the likelihood that a response contains hallucinations. We evaluate the proposed approach using two widely used LLMs, GPT-4o and Gemini-2.5-Flash, across two hallucination detection datasets. To support more reliable future benchmarking, one of these datasets has been manually curated and enhanced and is released as a secondary outcome of this work. Compared to standard self-detection methods and SelfCheckGPT, a state-of-the-art approach, our method achieves up to 16% relative improvement in accuracy and 20% in F1-score. Our results show that LLMs can better analyse atomic facts when they are structured as knowledge graphs, even when initial outputs contain inaccuracies. This low-cost, model-agnostic approach paves the way toward safer and more trustworthy language models.
Abstract:When artificial intelligence mistakes memorization for intelligence, it creates a dangerous mirage of reasoning. Existing studies treat memorization and self-knowledge deficits in LLMs as separate issues and do not recognize an intertwining link that degrades the trustworthiness of LLM responses. In our study, we utilize a novel framework to ascertain if LLMs genuinely learn reasoning patterns from training data or merely memorize them to assume competence across problems of similar complexity focused on STEM domains. Our analysis shows a noteworthy problem in generalization: LLMs draw confidence from memorized solutions to infer a higher self-knowledge about their reasoning ability, which manifests as an over 45% inconsistency in feasibility assessments when faced with self-validated, logically coherent task perturbations. This effect is most pronounced in science and medicine domains, which tend to have maximal standardized jargon and problems, further confirming our approach. Significant wavering within the self-knowledge of LLMs also shows flaws in current architectures and training patterns, highlighting the need for techniques that ensure a balanced, consistent stance on models' perceptions of their own knowledge for maximum AI explainability and trustworthiness. Our code and results are available publicly at https://github.com/knowledge-verse-ai/LLM-Memorization_SK_Eval-.
Abstract:As LLMs grow more powerful, their most profound achievement may be recognising when to say "I don't know". Existing studies on LLM self-knowledge have been largely constrained by human-defined notions of feasibility, often neglecting the reasons behind unanswerability by LLMs and failing to study deficient types of self-knowledge. This study aims to obtain intrinsic insights into different types of LLM self-knowledge with a novel methodology: allowing them the flexibility to set their own feasibility boundaries and then analysing the consistency of these limits. We find that even frontier models like GPT-4o and Mistral Large are not sure of their own capabilities more than 80% of the time, highlighting a significant lack of trustworthiness in responses. Our analysis of confidence balance in LLMs indicates that models swing between overconfidence and conservatism in feasibility boundaries depending on task categories and that the most significant self-knowledge weaknesses lie in temporal awareness and contextual understanding. These difficulties in contextual comprehension additionally lead models to question their operational boundaries, resulting in considerable confusion within the self-knowledge of LLMs. We make our code and results available publicly at https://github.com/knowledge-verse-ai/LLM-Self_Knowledge_Eval
Abstract:Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) refer to the most common inquiries about specific content. They serve as content comprehension aids by simplifying topics and enhancing understanding through succinct presentation of information. In this paper, we address FAQ generation as a well-defined Natural Language Processing (NLP) task through the development of an end-to-end system leveraging text-to-text transformation models. We present a literature review covering traditional question-answering systems, highlighting their limitations when applied directly to the FAQ generation task. We propose our system capable of building FAQs from textual content tailored to specific domains, enhancing their accuracy and relevance. We utilise self-curated algorithms for obtaining optimal representation of information to be provided as input and also for ranking the question-answer pairs to maximise human comprehension. Qualitative human evaluation showcases the generated FAQs to be well-constructed and readable, while also utilising domain-specific constructs to highlight domain-based nuances and jargon in the original content.