In this work, we systematically expose and measure the inconsistency and knowledge gaps of Large Language Models (LLMs). Specifically, we propose an automated testing framework (called KONTEST) which leverages a knowledge graph to construct test cases. KONTEST probes and measures the inconsistencies in the LLM's knowledge of the world via a combination of semantically-equivalent queries and test oracles (metamorphic or ontological oracle). KONTEST further mitigates knowledge gaps via a weighted LLM model ensemble. Using four state-of-the-art LLMs (Falcon, Gemini, GPT3.5, and Llama2), we show that KONTEST generates 19.2% error inducing inputs (1917 errors from 9983 test inputs). It also reveals a 16.5% knowledge gap across all tested LLMs. KONTEST's mitigation method reduces LLM knowledge gap by 32.48%. Our ablation study further shows that GPT3.5 is not suitable for knowledge-based consistency testing because it is only 60%-68% effective in knowledge construction.

We consider the task of generating structured representations of text using large language models (LLMs). We focus on tables and mind maps as representative modalities. Tables are more organized way of representing data, while mind maps provide a visually dynamic and flexible approach, particularly suitable for sparse content. Despite the effectiveness of LLMs on different tasks, we show that current models struggle with generating structured outputs. In response, we present effective prompting strategies for both of these tasks. We introduce a taxonomy of problems around factuality, global and local structure, common to both modalities and propose a set of critiques to tackle these issues resulting in an absolute improvement in accuracy of +37pp (79%) for mind maps and +15pp (78%) for tables. To evaluate semantic coverage of generated structured representations we propose Auto-QA, and we verify the adequacy of Auto-QA using SQuAD dataset. We further evaluate the usefulness of structured representations via a text comprehension user study. The results show a significant reduction in comprehension time compared to text when using table (42.9%) and mind map (31.9%), without loss in accuracy.