mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Statistically Supported LLM Ingredient and Recipe Data Collection in Computational Nutrition

arXiv 2607.23273 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2026cs.IR cs.AI cs.ETcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Computational nutrition needs precise ingredient data, but current databases are incomplete, inconsistent, and built for human reference rather than automated reasoning. LLMs could help fill these gaps, but single-pass outputs are unreliable and can introduce silent errors into downstream computation. We present a quality-controlled LLM pipeline for ingredient data acquisition that combines robust statistical estimation, domain-specific invariant checks, and a web-fetch fallback. An illustrative Heap's Law fit to 233 recipes suggests that unique-ingredient growth is sub-linear and front-loaded: the projected ratio of unique ingredients to recipes falls from 1.74 at 100 recipes to 0.19 at 5,000. For each ingredient attribute, repeated LLM queries are treated as samples from a model-induced answer distribution, and we apply robust point estimators and normalised confidence scores across numerical, Boolean, multiple-choice, open categorical, and optional integer types. An invariant guard layer enforces nutritional and logical self-consistency within each ingredient record. Minor numeric inconsistencies are reconciled via a linear program that minimises worst-case percentage deviation while preserving semantic zeros, and major violations are escalated to web-evidence-grounded repair, then human review only if that fails. On a curated 30-ingredient reference set, the pipeline achieves 98.4% exact match on nutrient flags and cuts median absolute percentage error on nutrient ratios from 31.9% for the median-aggregated baseline to 10.1%, a reduction of 21.8 percentage points, at an API cost of about 1 per ingredient. This frames LLM-assisted database construction as a controlled data-engineering workflow that makes uncertainty operational rather than discarding it.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2026.

Builds on

7 of 22 references.

References · 7

  1. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  2. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,582
  3. 2023A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Modelscited by 253
  4. 2023ChatGPT Chemistry Assistant for Text Mining and Prediction of MOF Synthesiscited by 50
  5. 2024NutriBench: A Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models on Nutrition Estimation from Meal Descriptionscited by 17
  6. 2026Consensus is Not Verification: Why Crowd Wisdom Strategies Fail for LLM Truthfulnesscited by 8
  7. 2026Evaluation of LLMs in retrieving food and nutritional context for RAG systemscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026CGU-ILALab at FoodBench-QA 2026: Comparing Traditional and LLM-based Approaches for Recipe Nutrient Estimation
  2. 2025LLMs for energy and macronutrients estimation using only text data from 24-hour dietary recalls: a parameter-efficient fine-tuning experiment using a 10-shot prompt
  3. 2025Introducing the Swiss Food Knowledge Graph: AI for Context-Aware Nutrition Recommendation
  4. 2026NutriMLLM: Multimodal Large Language Models for Dietary Micronutrient Analysis
  5. 2026Open-KNEAD: Knowledge-grounded Nutrition Estimation via Agentic Decomposition
  6. 2023UMDFood: Vision-language models boost food composition compilation
  7. 2025MM-Food-100K: A 100,000-Sample Multimodal Food Intelligence Dataset with Verifiable Provenance
  8. 2026OmniFood-Bench: Evaluating VLMs for Nutrient Reasoning and Personalized Health Advice