Vinu Ellampallil Venugopal

Jingjing Xu, Maria Biryukov, Martin Theobald et al.

Answering complex questions over textual resources remains a challenge, particularly when dealing with nuanced relationships between multiple entities expressed within natural-language sentences. To this end, curated knowledge bases (KBs) like YAGO, DBpedia, Freebase, and Wikidata have been widely used and gained great acceptance for question-answering (QA) applications in the past decade. While these KBs offer a structured knowledge representation, they lack the contextual diversity found in natural-language sources. To address this limitation, BigText-QA introduces an integrated QA approach, which is able to answer questions based on a more redundant form of a knowledge graph (KG) that organizes both structured and unstructured (i.e., "hybrid") knowledge in a unified graphical representation. Thereby, BigText-QA is able to combine the best of both worlds$\unicode{x2013}$a canonical set of named entities, mapped to a structured background KB (such as YAGO or Wikidata), as well as an open set of textual clauses providing highly diversified relational paraphrases with rich context information. Our experimental results demonstrate that BigText-QA outperforms DrQA, a neural-network-based QA system, and achieves competitive results to QUEST, a graph-based unsupervised QA system.

Vinu Ellampallil Venugopal

The CAP theorem states that a distributed system cannot simultaneously guarantee consistency, availability, and partition tolerance under network partition. Inspired by this result, this paper formulates a CAP-like conjecture for Large Language Models (LLMs). The proposed trilemma states that, under semantic underdetermination, an LLM cannot always simultaneously guarantee strong correctness, strict non-bias, and high utility. A prompt is semantically underdetermined when the given premises do not determine a unique answer. In such cases, a useful and decisive response requires the model to introduce a selection criterion, preference, prior, or value ordering. If this criterion is not supplied by the user or justified by the available premises, the response becomes biased in a broad selection-theoretic sense. Conversely, if the model avoids unsupported preferences, it may preserve correctness and non-bias but may reduce utility through refusal, hedging, or clarification. The paper formalizes this correctness--non-bias--utility trilemma, develops examples, and argues that certain LLM failures arise not merely from model limitations but from the structure of underdetermined decision requests.