Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Toward a Gricean Retreat: Probing LLMs for Knowledge Boundaries and Referent Specificity

Dananjay Srinivas, Saksham Khatwani, Maria Pacheco · Aug 13, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims. We frame this failure through a Gricean lens: a cooperative speaker who is uncertain about a referent retreats up the specificity hierarchy, trading informativeness for truthfulness. We ask whether LLMs have the ingredients to perform this retreat. Using a T-REx-based benchmark that varies entity familiarity and referent specificity, we probe models to answer two questions: (i) do their activations encode whether a referent falls inside the knowledge boundary, and (ii) do they anticipate the specificity of the referent they are about to generate? We find that the answer to both is yes, but the two signals are not reconciled in generation. Models overwhelmingly prefer specific referents even when the entity is unknown to them, and do so even when offered correct generic alternatives. The substrate for a Gricean retreat is present, but the policy that would act on it is not. We position our findings as a first step toward Gricean alignment, training or steering objectives that couple knowledge-boundary awareness to referent-specificity during generation.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • When asked about entities outside their knowledge boundary, LLMs routinely fabricate plausible-sounding details rather than backing off to safer, more general claims.
  • We frame this failure through a Gricean lens: a cooperative speaker who is uncertain about a referent retreats up the specificity hierarchy, trading informativeness for truthfulness.
  • We ask whether LLMs have the ingredients to perform this retreat.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Using a T-REx-based benchmark that varies entity familiarity and referent specificity, we probe models to answer two questions: (i) do their activations encode whether a referent falls inside the knowledge boundary, and (ii) do they…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Using a T-REx-based benchmark that varies entity familiarity and referent specificity, we probe models to answer two questions: (i) do their activations encode whether a referent falls inside the knowledge boundary, and (ii) do they…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.