Can LLMs Refuse Questions They Do Not Know? Measuring Knowledge-Aware Refusal in Factual Tasks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) should refuse to answer questions beyond their knowledge. This capability, which we term knowledge-aware refusal, is crucial for factual reliability, while existing metrics fail to capture this ability. In this work, we propose the Refusal Index (RI), a novel and principled metric that measures how accurately LLMs refuse questions they do not know. We define RI as Spearman's rank correlation between refusal probability and error probability. RI is practically measurable with a lightweight two-pass evaluation method which only require observed refusal rates across two standard evaluation runs. Extensive experiments across 16 models and 5 datasets demonstrate that RI accurately quantifies a model's knowledge-aware refusal capability. Notably, RI remains stable across different refusal rates and provides consistent model rankings independent of a model's overall accuracy and refusal rates. These properties suggest RI captures a stable, intrinsic aspect of model knowledge calibration. More importantly, RI provides insight into an important but previously overlooked aspect of LLM factuality: while LLMs achieve high accuracy on factual tasks, their refusal behavior can be unreliable and fragile.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2025.
Builds on
26 of 41 references.
References · 26
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,582
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 946
- 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 795
- 2025Towards Reasoning Era: A Survey of Long Chain-of-Thought for Reasoning Large Language Modelscited by 381
- 2024Measuring short-form factuality in large language modelscited by 345
14 more
- 2023Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?cited by 238
- 2023Do Language Models Know When They're Hallucinating References?cited by 115
- 2023R-Tuning: Instructing Large Language Models to Say `I Don't Know'cited by 106
- 2024Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Knowcited by 99
- 2024FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows"cited by 85
- 2024Rejection Improves Reliability: Training LLMs to Refuse Unknown Questions Using RL from Knowledge Feedbackcited by 64
- 2024Calibrating Large Language Models Using Their Generations Onlycited by 63
- 2024LegalAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Legal Domaincited by 56
- 2024Can AI Assistants Know What They Don't Know?cited by 47
- 2024Uncertainty in Language Models: Assessment through Rank-Calibrationcited by 40
- 2025Capabilities of GPT-5 on Multimodal Medical Reasoningcited by 35
- 2023Learn to Refuse: Making Large Language Models More Controllable and Reliable through Knowledge Scope Limitation and Refusal Mechanismcited by 33
- 2025Brains vs. Bytes: Evaluating LLM Proficiency in Olympiad Mathematicscited by 22
- 2024Fine-grained and Explainable Factuality Evaluation for Multimodal Summarizationcited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
5 papers.
- 2026Evolving Agents in the Dark: Retrospective Harness Optimization via Self-Preferencecited by 17
- 2026Don't Always Pick the Highest-Performing Model: An Information Theoretic View of LLM Ensemble Selectioncited by 10
- 2025How Semantically Stable Are LLM Refusals? Measuring Confusion in Local Safety Boundariescited by 2
- 2026Magic, Madness, Heaven, Sin: LLM Output Diversity is Everything, Everywhere, All at Oncecited by 0
- 2026Regime Boundary Alignment for Evidence-Gated Question Answeringcited by 0
- 2026Regime Boundary Alignment for Evidence-Gated Question Answering25 Sep 2026
- 2026Evolving Agents in the Dark: Retrospective Harness Optimization via Self-Preference4 Jun 2026
- 2026Magic, Madness, Heaven, Sin: LLM Output Diversity is Everything, Everywhere, All at Once2 Apr 2026
- 2026Don't Always Pick the Highest-Performing Model: An Information Theoretic View of LLM Ensemble Selection8 Feb 2026
- 2025How Semantically Stable Are LLM Refusals? Measuring Confusion in Local Safety Boundaries30 Nov 2025