REVIEW 2 cited by
Crawling the Internal Knowledge-Base of Language Models
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
read the original abstract
Language models are trained on large volumes of text, and as a result their parameters might contain a significant body of factual knowledge. Any downstream task performed by these models implicitly builds on these facts, and thus it is highly desirable to have means for representing this body of knowledge in an interpretable way. However, there is currently no mechanism for such a representation. Here, we propose to address this goal by extracting a knowledge-graph of facts from a given language model. We describe a procedure for ``crawling'' the internal knowledge-base of a language model. Specifically, given a seed entity, we expand a knowledge-graph around it. The crawling procedure is decomposed into sub-tasks, realized through specially designed prompts that control for both precision (i.e., that no wrong facts are generated) and recall (i.e., the number of facts generated). We evaluate our approach on graphs crawled starting from dozens of seed entities, and show it yields high precision graphs (82-92%), while emitting a reasonable number of facts per entity.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Simulating Tabular Datasets through LLMs to Rapidly Explore Hypotheses about Real-World Entities
LLMs can approximate tabular datasets about real-world entities well enough for rapid hypothesis exploration, and fidelity improves with model scale.
-
When to Speak, When to Abstain: Contrastive Decoding with Abstention
CDA is a training-free decoding method that weights parametric, contextual, and abstention distributions using null-prompt calibrated entropy, letting LLMs answer when they can and abstain when they cannot.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.