# Self-Aware Knowledge Probing: Evaluating Language Models' Relational Knowledge through Confidence Calibration

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18901 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18901/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Language Models as Knowledge Bases?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01066/) (2019)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01685/) (2019)
- [Identifying Mislabeled Data using the Area Under the Margin Ranking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.10528/) (2020)
- [Language Models as Knowledge Bases: On Entity Representations, Storage Capacity, and Paraphrased Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.09036/) (2020)
- [Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06730/) (2024)
- [Generating Benchmarks for Factuality Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.06908/) (2023)
- [Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17752/) (2024)
- [Give Me the Facts! A Survey on Factual Knowledge Probing in Pre-trained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16570/) (2023)
- [A Better Way to Do Masked Language Model Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10588/) (2023)
- [BEAR: A Unified Framework for Evaluating Relational Knowledge in Causal and Masked Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04113/) (2024)
- [How Reliable are LLMs as Knowledge Bases? Re-thinking Facutality and Consistency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13578/) (2024)
- [What Matters in Memorizing and Recalling Facts? Multifaceted Benchmarks for Knowledge Probing in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12277/) (2024)
- [LM-PUB-QUIZ: A Comprehensive Framework for Zero-Shot Evaluation of Relational Knowledge in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15729/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Future Confidence Distillation in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07626/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Knowledge probing quantifies how much relational knowledge a language model (LM) has acquired during pre-training. Existing knowledge probes evaluate model capabilities through metrics like prediction accuracy and precision. Such evaluations fail to account for the model's reliability, reflected in the calibration of its confidence scores. In this paper, we establish an empirical framework to evaluate the calibration of relational knowledge in a closed answer-set setting. We cover three modalities of model confidence: (1) intrinsic confidence, (2) paraphrase consistency and (3) linguistic confidence. Our extensive analysis of 21 causal and 8 masked language models reveals that most models, but especially those pre-trained with the masking objective, are overconfident. The best-calibrated scores come from confidence estimates that account for inconsistencies due to statement rephrasing. Moreover, calibration improves when increasing the number of answer options.