REVIEW 1 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
How Reliable are LLMs as Knowledge Bases? Re-thinking Facutality and Consistency
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 1 Pith paper
-
Large Language Model Agent: A Survey on Methodology, Applications and Challenges
A survey that deconstructs LLM agent systems via a methodology-centered taxonomy linking design principles to emergent behaviors, applications, and challenges.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.