Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2407.13578 v2 pith:WZQEJHWE submitted 2024-07-18 cs.CL cs.AI

How Reliable are LLMs as Knowledge Bases? Re-thinking Facutality and Consistency

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords knowledgeconsistencyllmsreliablebasescriteriaevaluationfactuality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Large Language Model Agent: A Survey on Methodology, Applications and Challenges

    cs.CL 2025-03 accept novelty 3.0

    A survey that deconstructs LLM agent systems via a methodology-centered taxonomy linking design principles to emergent behaviors, applications, and challenges.