Confident Fools or Careful Searchers? A Behavioural Study of When LLMs Search Beyond Their Static Internal Memory
TL;DR
A benchmark of 400 multiple-choice questions that combines widely known inside-knowledge inside-knowledge questions, which should be answered directly, with outside-knowledge questions about facts from news published after the models'training cut-offs is introduced, which should trigger search or, without tools, abstention.
Abstract
Agentic LLM assistants must repeatedly decide whether to answer from memory or to call a tool such as web search. Unnecessary searches cost latency and money; missing ones yield confident but unsupported answers. Prior work mostly measures verbalised confidence or trains new adaptive-retrieval methods, and rarely audits the search decisions that deployed products actually make. We introduce a benchmark of 400 multiple-choice questions that combines widely known inside-knowledge (IK) questions, which should be answered directly, with outside-knowledge (OK) questions about facts from news published after the models'training cut-offs (to our knowledge), which should trigger search or, without tools, abstention. Each item offers an abstain option, and two action-level scores, NAS and KIS, reward searching on OK questions and restraint on IK questions. Across five commercial LLMs with and without their vendors'web search, GPT-5 mini and Grok 4 Fast search on over 90% of OK but only 1% of IK questions, whereas Mistral Small searches on just 20% of OK questions, often abstaining instead of using its tool; one product's search indicator proved unusable. Searching is partly triggered by explicit temporal cues: on uncued OK questions, the NAS of the two selective models falls from about 0.72 to 0.57--0.58. The scores thus measure the search triggering of specific products, not metacognition in a strict sense.
