Blind Men and the Elephant: Probing the Epistemic Myopia of LLMs under Long-Tail Divergent Knowledge
Abstract
ElephantBench evaluates whether large language models retain multiple conflicting accounts of long-tail facts through a graph-based pipeline that creates verifiable multi-account questions, revealing widespread epistemic incompleteness.
Factual question answering (QA) typically assumes a single canonical answer, obscuring whether large language models (LLMs) retain divergent accounts of long-tail facts. To address this gap, we introduce ElephantBench, a closed-book knowledge probe comprising 1,094 questions generated through an auditable graph-based pipeline. The pipeline retrieves related documents from a low-exposure web corpus, identifies naturally occurring disagreements, and converts them into multi-account QA records. Each answer is verified against the originating documents and authoritative public web sources and is then reviewed by human annotators. Across 32 models, even the strongest model recovers both accounts on only 52.4% of questions, while on nearly all remaining questions it recalls one account but omits the other. Scaling model size and inference-time reasoning improve recall but do not eliminate this incompleteness. Corpus analysis further shows that exposure imbalance favors the dominant account, whereas greater minority-side exposure is associated with more complete recall. These findings establish ElephantBench as a reproducible knowledge probe for diagnosing epistemic myopia in parametric memory. More broadly, our graph-based benchmark construction pipeline provides an efficient and scalable way to turn long-tail corpora into source-traceable knowledge probes, supporting efforts to evaluate and advance the epistemic rigour of next-generation LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/Tencent/ElephantBench.
Community
ElephantBench is a closed-book knowledge probe for evaluating whether a language model remembers long-tail facts and whether it recalls the different verified accounts associated with those facts. The benchmark contains 1,094 questions using two formulation types: a named-entity form and a clue-based form.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- WildTrace: Benchmarking Natural Evidence Trails in Long-Context Reasoning (2026)
- Same Agent, Different Answers: A Repeat-Aware Audit of Corpus-Induced Answer Churn in Retrieval-Augmented QA (2026)
- DRNOISE: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents in Misleading Evidence Environments (2026)
- Knowledgeless Language Models: Suppressing Parametric Recall for Evidence-Grounded Language Modeling (2026)
- From Storage to Access: Verifiable Activation of Parametric Knowledge in LLMs via Explicit Priming and Implicit Reasoning (2026)
- HopRefusalBench: Diagnosing Refusal Failures in Search-Augmented Agents for Multi-Hop Reasoning (2026)
- CRiT-QA: Evaluating Multi-hop Reasoning with Counterfactual Chains and Distractor Traps (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 2
DIYIN/ElephantBench
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper