EMNLP 2025

November 05, 2025

Suzhou, China

Would you like to see your presentation here, made available to a global audience of researchers?
Add your own presentation or have us affordably record your next conference.

The reliability of large language models (LLMs) is greatly compromised by their tendency to hallucinate, underscoring the need for precise identification of knowledge gaps within LLMs. Various methods for probing such gaps exist, ranging from calibration-based to prompting-based methods. To evaluate these probing methods, in this paper, we propose a new process based on using input variations and quantitative metrics. Through this, we expose two dimensions of inconsistency in knowledge gap probing. (1) Intra-method inconsistency: Minimal non-semantic perturbations in prompts lead to considerable variance in detected knowledge gaps within the same probing method; e.g., the simple variation of shuffling answer options can decrease agreement to around 40%. (2) Cross-method inconsistency: Probing methods contradict each other on whether a model knows the answer. Methods are highly inconsistent -- with decision consistency across methods being as low as 7% -- even though the model, dataset, and prompt are all the same. These findings challenge existing probing methods and highlight the urgent need for perturbation-robust probing frameworks.

Downloads

SlidesPaperTranscript English (automatic)

Next from EMNLP 2025

Using tournaments to calculate AUROC for zero-shot classification with LLMs
poster

Using tournaments to calculate AUROC for zero-shot classification with LLMs

EMNLP 2025

WonJin YoonIan Bulovic
Ian Bulovic and 2 other authors

05 November 2025

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

Select topic of interest (you can select more than one)

PRESENTATIONS

  • All Presentations
  • For Librarians
  • Resource Center
  • Free Trial
Underline Science, Inc.
1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

© 2025 Underline - All rights reserved