This work introduces the Epistemic Honesty Quotient (EHQ), which reports three observable sub-scores across two operational axes (epistemic restraint and substantive-answer calibration), and constructs EHQ-3000, a 3,000-question benchmark spanning Fabricated Entity, Post-Cutoff Event, Hyper-Niche True, and Context-Conditioned Questions.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently confident, eloquent, and well versed. A natural question arises: do they know what they don't know? To answer this question, we borrow the concept of epistemic honesty and develop a novel metric to systematically evaluate whether an LLM appropriately acknowledges the boundaries of its knowledge. In this work, we introduce the Epistemic Honesty Quotient (EHQ), which reports three observable sub-scores across two operational axes (epistemic restraint and substantive-answer calibration), and construct EHQ-3000, a 3,000-question benchmark spanning Fabricated Entity, Post-Cutoff Event, Hyper-Niche True, and Context-Conditioned Questions. From a frozen registry of 21 model API routes, 15 completed the protocol after endpoint and eligibility checks; 14 entered the confirmatory analysis because severe provider-side truncation made one route's score indeterminate. The study reveals substantial variation across models, including a difference that can not be explained by their capability to extract explicitly available information. Composite EHQ ranges from 0.31 to 0.81 across the analysed panel, despite near-ceiling performance on the document-grounded capability probe. The two restraint criteria overlap strongly under the present category composition, whereas substantive-answer calibration varies across models and does not reliably co-vary with restraint; however, the small panel leaves substantial uncertainty. Thus, EHQ reveals behavioral differences that are not visible to conventional correctness-based assessment, while also showing why dataset composition, provider behavior, and confidence elicitation must remain part of the interpretation.
Language models are appealing tools for research on the past. But to trust the evidence a model provides, researchers need to know whether its responses fit the period represented. Validation is challenging, because this is not a task living people ordinarily perform, and because many questions have multiple correct an...
Ted Underwood, Zi-Liang Qiu, Sarah Griebel et al.· 0 citations
This study empirically confirms the presence of LLM values, accurately quantifies their shifts, and achieves more efficient and precise steering than conventional blind training, all without degrading general capabilities.
Kelvin Zhang, Jing-Yu-Gin Chen, Yu-Fan Liu et al.· 0 citations
It is shown how fact-checking, a generally desirable behavior, can interfere with belief tracking in LLMs and how suppressing this attention at decoding time recovers accuracy only partially and only in some models, calling for future work on intervention methods.
Quang Minh Nguyen, Luis Frentzen Salim· 0 citations
It is argued that epistemic diversity is a useful evaluation dimension for settings where LLMs are used to support knowledge-intensive tasks, and a preliminary framework for conceptualizing and measuring epistemic diversity in LLMs is proposed, and operationalized in two domains.
Elisabeth Kirsten, N. Krämer, Muhammad Bilal Zafar· 0 citations
Language models can fluently describe how they would behave: whether they would cave to pushback, misuse a tool, or lie under pressure. Is that description actually about the model speaking? We turn self-knowledge into a prediction test. Across nine behavioral evaluations, we measure how a model behaves under different...
A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.