REVIEW 2 cited by
How Reliable are LLMs as Knowledge Bases? Re-thinking Facutality and Consistency
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
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as knowledge bases (KBs), yet current evaluation methods focus too narrowly on knowledge retention, overlooking other crucial criteria for reliable performance. In this work, we rethink the requirements for evaluating reliable LLM-as-KB usage and highlight two essential factors: factuality, ensuring accurate responses to seen and unseen knowledge, and consistency, maintaining stable answers to questions about the same knowledge. We introduce UnseenQA, a dataset designed to assess LLM performance on unseen knowledge, and propose new criteria and metrics to quantify factuality and consistency, leading to a final reliability score. Our experiments on 26 LLMs reveal several challenges regarding their use as KBs, underscoring the need for more principled and comprehensive evaluation.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Shaking to Reveal: Perturbation-Based Detection of LLM Hallucinations
SSP adds a learned, sample-specific noise prompt to an LLM input and scores hallucination by the cosine shift in intermediate representations, outperforming output-confidence baselines on QA benchmarks.
-
A Graph Perspective to Probe Structural Patterns of Knowledge in Large Language Models
LLM knowledge, measured by self-reported true/false checks on knowledge-graph triplets, shows homophily and degree correlations that a graph neural network exploits to select more effective fine-tuning data.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.