# Beyond Answer Confidence: A Controlled Audit of Self-Knowledge in a Black-Box Decision Model

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01006 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01006/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 40 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: An Introduction to Concepts and Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.09457/) (2019)
- [Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00093/) (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)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [Efficient Intent Detection with Dual Sentence Encoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.04807/) (2020)
- [AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10645/) (2020)
- [An Evaluation Dataset for Intent Classification and Out-of-Scope Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02027/) (2019)
- [Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18153/) (2023)
- [Are We Done with MMLU?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04127/) (2024)
- [What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.03532/) (2020)
- [AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09038/) (2025)
- [Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: Are Conditional Entropy and Mutual Information Appropriate Measures?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.03302/) (2022)
- [To Believe or Not to Believe Your LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.02543/) (2024)
- [GLiNER: Generalist Model for Named Entity Recognition using Bidirectional Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08526/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Uncertainty Disentanglement: Specialized Uncertainties for Specialized Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19460/) (2024)
- [Stop Measuring Calibration When Humans Disagree](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.16133/) (2022)
- [Pitfalls of Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification through Loss Minimisation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.06102/) (2022)
- [Smooth ECE: Principled Reliability Diagrams via Kernel Smoothing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12236/) (2023)
- [Knowledge of Knowledge: Exploring Known-Unknowns Uncertainty with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13712/) (2023)
- [SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.07968/) (2025)
- [Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.20892/) (2024)
- [MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15194/) (2024)
- [Quizbowl: The Case for Incremental Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.04792/) (2019)
- [Is Epistemic Uncertainty Faithfully Represented by Evidential Deep Learning Methods?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09056/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Decision models return probabilities intended for routing, abstention and automated action. Calibration makes those probabilities useful on average, but does not establish whether low confidence reflects chance or missing knowledge, nor whether confidence falls when a model moves beyond what it knows. We audit this distinction in Jev, a decision model, with over 15 public datasets and 6 generated task families, with paired interventions that vary the information supplied for a fixed item. Jev's confidence is calibrated on familiar closed-choice tasks but fails as an indicator of missing knowledge: with no answer-relevant information it assigns up to 0.80 to a salient option, and on news beyond an observed knowledge boundary it exceeds accuracy by 0.21--0.33, a gap that recalibration on earlier months does not close. Targeted yes/no questions give sharper readouts of the case: whether an outcome is settled (AUROC 1.00) and whether the evidence suffices (0.95, against 0.85 for confidence on the same items). Asking whether Jev knows the answer appears to flag fabricated entities and post-boundary news (0.91), but with realistic names or with dates removed it shows no advantage over answer uncertainty. Black-box knowledge audits therefore need explicit controls for surface cues. Code: https://github.com/Syntheme/beyond-answer-confidence.