Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Reasoning about concepts with LLMs: Inconsistencies abound

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 2405.20163 v1 pith:E2Q2N2V3 submitted 2024-05-30 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords llmsconceptsknowledgedomaininconsistenciesreasoningdemonstratesimple
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The ability to summarize and organize knowledge into abstract concepts is key to learning and reasoning. Many industrial applications rely on the consistent and systematic use of concepts, especially when dealing with decision-critical knowledge. However, we demonstrate that, when methodically questioned, large language models (LLMs) often display and demonstrate significant inconsistencies in their knowledge. Computationally, the basic aspects of the conceptualization of a given domain can be represented as Is-A hierarchies in a knowledge graph (KG) or ontology, together with a few properties or axioms that enable straightforward reasoning. We show that even simple ontologies can be used to reveal conceptual inconsistencies across several LLMs. We also propose strategies that domain experts can use to evaluate and improve the coverage of key domain concepts in LLMs of various sizes. In particular, we have been able to significantly enhance the performance of LLMs of various sizes with openly available weights using simple knowledge-graph (KG) based prompting strategies.

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. Existing LLMs Are Not Self-Consistent For Simple Tasks

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Even state-of-the-art LLMs produce internally contradictory answers on simple ordering and kinship tasks, and a new inconsistency metric quantifies how far they fall short.

  2. A comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes LLM hallucination types, causes, benchmarks, and mitigations, and restates the theorem that hallucination is inevitable for computable LLMs.

Pith tools