Luca Giordano

Luca Giordano, Simon Razniewski

Parametric knowledge in large language models (LLMs) is a cornerstone of their success, yet remains poorly understood. Existing knowledge benchmarks typically rely on predefined questions (e.g., "What is the birth date of M.L. King?"), evaluating only knowledge that benchmark designers explicitly choose to query, a problematic availability bias. In this paper, we introduce open knowledge evaluation, a new paradigm for LLM knowledge benchmarking. Instead of asking narrow questions, it evaluates models on the knowledge they choose to surface in response to open-ended elicitation prompts (e.g., "Tell me everything you know about M.L. King"). This shifts the focus from predefined answer retrieval toward characterizing the knowledge models naturally express. We instantiate this paradigm with BeQu (Beyond Questions), a benchmark of 10,000 entities paired with reference corpora for statement verification. Using BeQu, we evaluate a broad range of language models and analyze the effects of reasoning effort, model scale, prompt format, and knowledge domain. Data and leaderboard are available on this work's GitHub repository and at the benchmark's website.

Malvina Nissim, Danilo Croce, Viviana Patti et al.

The rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed natural language processing and broadened its impact across research and society. Yet, systematic evaluation of these models, especially for languages beyond English, remains limited. "Challenging the Abilities of LAnguage Models in ITAlian" (CALAMITA) is a large-scale collaborative benchmarking initiative for Italian, coordinated under the Italian Association for Computational Linguistics. Unlike existing efforts that focus on leaderboards, CALAMITA foregrounds methodology: it federates more than 80 contributors from academia, industry, and the public sector to design, document, and evaluate a diverse collection of tasks, covering linguistic competence, commonsense reasoning, factual consistency, fairness, summarization, translation, and code generation. Through this process, we not only assembled a benchmark of over 20 tasks and almost 100 subtasks, but also established a centralized evaluation pipeline that supports heterogeneous datasets and metrics. We report results for four open-weight LLMs, highlighting systematic strengths and weaknesses across abilities, as well as challenges in task-specific evaluation. Beyond quantitative results, CALAMITA exposes methodological lessons: the necessity of fine-grained, task-representative metrics, the importance of harmonized pipelines, and the benefits and limitations of broad community engagement. CALAMITA is conceived as a rolling benchmark, enabling continuous integration of new tasks and models. This makes it both a resource -- the most comprehensive and diverse benchmark for Italian to date -- and a framework for sustainable, community-driven evaluation. We argue that this combination offers a blueprint for other languages and communities seeking inclusive and rigorous LLM evaluation practices.

Shrestha Ghosh, Luca Giordano, Yujia Hu et al.

LLMs are remarkable artifacts that have revolutionized a range of NLP and AI tasks. A significant contributor is their factual knowledge, which, to date, remains poorly understood, and is usually analyzed from biased samples. In this paper, we take a deep tour into the factual knowledge (or beliefs) of a frontier LLM, based on GPTKB v1.5 (Hu et al., 2025a), a recursively elicited set of 100 million beliefs of one of the strongest currently available frontier LLMs, GPT-4.1. We find that the models' factual knowledge differs quite significantly from established knowledge bases, and that its accuracy is significantly lower than indicated by previous benchmarks. We also find that inconsistency, ambiguity and hallucinations are major issues, shedding light on future research opportunities concerning factual LLM knowledge.

Luca Giordano, Simon Razniewski

Large Language Models (LLMs) encode substantial factual knowledge, yet measuring and systematizing this knowledge remains challenging. Converting it into structured format, for example through recursive extraction approaches such as the GPTKB methodology (Hu et al., 2025b), is still underexplored. Key open questions include whether such extraction can terminate, whether its outputs are reproducible, and how robust they are to variations. We systematically study LLM knowledge materialization using miniGPTKBs (domain-specific, tractable subcrawls), analyzing termination, reproducibility, and robustness across three categories of metrics: yield, lexical similarity, and semantic similarity. We experiment with four variations (seed, language, randomness, model) and three illustrative domains (from history, entertainment, and finance). Our findings show (i) high termination rates, though model-dependent; (ii) mixed reproducibility; and (iii) robustness that varies by perturbation type: high for seeds and temperature, lower for languages and models. These results suggest that LLM knowledge materialization can reliably surface core knowledge, while also revealing important limitations.