Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

How Can We Know What Language Models Know?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1911.12543 v2 pith:PO2FQKOD submitted 2019-11-28 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords promptsknowknowledgepromptcontainedmethodsaccuratelyautomatically
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent work has presented intriguing results examining the knowledge contained in language models (LM) by having the LM fill in the blanks of prompts such as "Obama is a _ by profession". These prompts are usually manually created, and quite possibly sub-optimal; another prompt such as "Obama worked as a _" may result in more accurately predicting the correct profession. Because of this, given an inappropriate prompt, we might fail to retrieve facts that the LM does know, and thus any given prompt only provides a lower bound estimate of the knowledge contained in an LM. In this paper, we attempt to more accurately estimate the knowledge contained in LMs by automatically discovering better prompts to use in this querying process. Specifically, we propose mining-based and paraphrasing-based methods to automatically generate high-quality and diverse prompts, as well as ensemble methods to combine answers from different prompts. Extensive experiments on the LAMA benchmark for extracting relational knowledge from LMs demonstrate that our methods can improve accuracy from 31.1% to 39.6%, providing a tighter lower bound on what LMs know. We have released the code and the resulting LM Prompt And Query Archive (LPAQA) at https://github.com/jzbjyb/LPAQA.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Benchmarking LLMs on File System Design and Implementation

    cs.OS 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs pass 88–96% of basic file-system tasks but only 38–42% of optimization and new-feature tasks on the new 505-task Phi-Bench benchmark.

  2. Augmented Vision-Language Models: A Systematic Review

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A structured taxonomy of inference-time augmentation techniques that connect vision-language models to external symbolic systems, tools, and knowledge sources.

Pith tools