mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Towards a Holistic Evaluation of LLMs on Factual Knowledge Recall

arXiv 2404.16164 ↗First posted 24 Apr 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on a variety of NLP tasks, and are being rapidly adopted in a wide range of use cases. It is therefore of vital importance to holistically evaluate the factuality of their generated outputs, as hallucinations remain a challenging issue. In this work, we focus on assessing LLMs' ability to recall factual knowledge learned from pretraining, and the factors that affect this ability. To that end, we construct FACT-BENCH, a representative benchmark covering 20 domains, 134 property types, 3 answer types, and different knowledge popularity levels. We benchmark 31 models from 10 model families and provide a holistic assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. We observe that instruction-tuning hurts knowledge recall, as pretraining-only models consistently outperform their instruction-tuned counterparts, and positive effects of model scaling, as larger models outperform smaller ones for all model families. However, the best performance from GPT-4 still represents a large gap with the upper-bound. We additionally study the role of in-context exemplars using counterfactual demonstrations, which lead to significant degradation of factual knowledge recall for large models. By further decoupling model known and unknown knowledge, we find the degradation is attributed to exemplars that contradict a model's known knowledge, as well as the number of such exemplars. Lastly, we fine-tune LLaMA-7B in different settings of known and unknown knowledge. In particular, fine-tuning on a model's known knowledge is beneficial, and consistently outperforms fine-tuning on unknown and mixed knowledge. We will make our benchmark publicly available.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2024.

Builds on

17 of 29 references.

References · 17

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  3. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  4. 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
  5. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
  6. 2022BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Modelcited by 1,968
  7. 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,922
  8. 2021Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalizationcited by 1,462
  9. 2022Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?cited by 1,413
  10. 2022Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 1,397
  11. 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,103
  12. 2020How Much Knowledge Can You Pack Into the Parameters of a Language Model?cited by 713
5 more
  1. 2020How Context Affects Language Models' Factual Predictionscited by 181
  2. 2023Head-to-Tail: How Knowledgeable are Large Language Models (LLMs)? A.K.A. Will LLMs Replace Knowledge Graphs?cited by 167
  3. 2023What In-Context Learning "Learns" In-Context: Disentangling Task Recognition and Task Learningcited by 149
  4. 2022Ground-Truth Labels Matter: A Deeper Look into Input-Label Demonstrationscited by 116
  5. 2023KoLA: Carefully Benchmarking World Knowledge of Large Language Modelscited by 85

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

8 papers.