REVIEW 1 cited by
Can Knowledge Graphs Make Large Language Models More Trustworthy? An Empirical Study Over Open-ended Question Answering
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
Can Knowledge Graphs Make Large Language Models More Trustworthy? An Empirical Study Over Open-ended Question Answering
read the original abstract
Recent works integrating Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have shown promising improvements in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on closed-ended tasks, leaving a gap in evaluating performance on more complex, real-world scenarios. This limitation also hinders a thorough assessment of KGs' potential to reduce hallucinations in LLMs. To address this, we introduce OKGQA, a new benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs augmented with KGs in open-ended, real-world question answering settings. OKGQA reflects practical complexities through diverse question types and incorporates metrics to quantify both hallucination rates and reasoning improvements in LLM+KG models. To consider the scenarios in which KGs may contain varying levels of errors, we propose a benchmark variant, OKGQA-P, to assess model performance when the semantics and structure of KGs are deliberately perturbed and contaminated. In this paper, we aims to (1) explore whether KGs can make LLMs more trustworthy in an open-ended setting, and (2) conduct a comparative analysis to shed light on method design. We believe this study can facilitate a more complete performance comparison and encourages continuous improvement in integrating KGs with LLMs to mitigate hallucination, and make LLMs more trustworthy. Code and data are released at https://github.com/Y-Sui/OKGQA.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
When Should LLMs Be Less Specific? Selective Abstraction for Reliable Long-Form Text Generation
Atom-wise selective abstraction—replacing low-confidence factual claims with higher-confidence, less specific versions—improves the risk-coverage trade-off in long-form generation by up to 27.73% AURC over claim removal.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.