The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has redefined the AI landscape, particularly due to their ability to encode factual and commonsense knowledge, and their outstanding performance in tasks requiring reasoning. Despite these advances, hallucinations and reasoning errors remain a significant barrier to their deployment in high-stakes settings. In this work, we observe that even the most prominent LLMs, such as OpenAI-o1, suffer from high rates of reasoning errors and hallucinations on tasks requiring commonsense reasoning over obscure, long-tail entities. To investigate this limitation, we present a new dataset for Commonsense reasoning over Long-Tail entities (CoLoTa), that consists of 3,300 queries from question answering and claim verification tasks and covers a diverse range of commonsense reasoning skills. We remark that CoLoTa can also serve as a Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) dataset since the support of knowledge required to answer its queries is present in the Wikidata knowledge graph. However, as opposed to existing KGQA benchmarks that merely focus on factoid questions, our CoLoTa queries also require commonsense reasoning. Our experiments with strong LLM-based KGQA methodologies indicate their severe inability to answer queries involving commonsense reasoning. Hence, we propose CoLoTa as a novel benchmark for assessing both (i) LLM commonsense reasoning capabilities and their robustness to hallucinations on long-tail entities and (ii) the commonsense reasoning capabilities of KGQA methods.

Knowledge editing has emerged as an effective approach for updating large language models (LLMs) by modifying their internal knowledge. However, their application to the biomedical domain faces unique challenges due to the long-tailed distribution of biomedical knowledge, where rare and infrequent information is prevalent. In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive study to investigate the effectiveness of knowledge editing methods for editing long-tail biomedical knowledge. Our results indicate that, while existing editing methods can enhance LLMs' performance on long-tail biomedical knowledge, their performance on long-tail knowledge remains inferior to that on high-frequency popular knowledge, even after editing. Our further analysis reveals that long-tail biomedical knowledge contains a significant amount of one-to-many knowledge, where one subject and relation link to multiple objects. This high prevalence of one-to-many knowledge limits the effectiveness of knowledge editing in improving LLMs' understanding of long-tail biomedical knowledge, highlighting the need for tailored strategies to bridge this performance gap.

Large language models (LLMs) can learn vast amounts of knowledge from diverse domains during pre-training. However, long-tail knowledge from specialized domains is often scarce and underrepresented, rarely appearing in the models' memorization. Prior work has shown that in-context learning (ICL) with retriever augmentation can help LLMs better capture long-tail knowledge, reducing their reliance on pre-trained data. Despite these advances, we observe that LLM predictions for long-tail questions remain uncertain to variations in retrieved samples. To take advantage of the uncertainty in ICL for guiding LLM predictions toward correct answers on long-tail samples, we propose a reinforcement learning-based dynamic uncertainty ranking method for ICL that accounts for the varying impact of each retrieved sample on LLM predictions. Our approach prioritizes more informative and stable samples while demoting misleading ones, updating rankings based on the feedback from the LLM w.r.t. each retrieved sample. To enhance training efficiency and reduce query costs, we introduce a learnable dynamic ranking threshold, adjusted when the model encounters negative prediction shifts. Experimental results on various question-answering datasets from different domains show that our method outperforms the best baseline by $2.76\%$, with a notable $5.96\%$ boost in accuracy on long-tail questions that elude zero-shot inference.

Knowledge graph question answering (KGQA) is a well-established field that seeks to provide factual answers to natural language (NL) questions by leveraging knowledge graphs (KGs). However, existing KGQA datasets suffer from two significant limitations: (1) no existing KGQA dataset requires commonsense reasoning to arrive at an answer and (2) existing KGQA datasets focus on popular entities for which large language models (LLMs) can directly answer without hallucinating and without leveraging the KG. In this work, we seek a novel KGQA dataset that supports commonsense reasoning and focuses on long-tail entities (e.g., non-mainstream and recent entities) where LLMs frequently hallucinate, and thus create the need for novel methodologies that leverage the KG for factual and attributable commonsense inference. We create a novel Commonsense Reasoning (CR) and Long-Tail (LT) KGQA dataset with two subtasks -- question answering and claim verification -- that address both limitations (1) and (2). We construct CR-LT-KGQA by building extensions to existing reasoning datasets StrategyQA and CREAK over Wikidata. While existing KGQA methods are not applicable due to their lack of commonsense inference support, baseline evaluation of LLMs on CR-LT KGQA demonstrate a high rate of hallucination. Thus, CR-LT KGQA poses significant challenges for hallucination-prone LLMs, hence paving the way for future commonsense KGQA research to provide accurate and factual answers for long-tail entities in the era of LLMs.

Pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant attention for addressing open-domain Question Answering (QA). While they exhibit high accuracy in answering questions related to common knowledge, LLMs encounter difficulties in learning about uncommon long-tail knowledge (tail entities). Since manually constructing QA datasets demands substantial human resources, the types of existing QA datasets are limited, leaving us with a scarcity of datasets to study the performance of LLMs on tail entities. In this paper, we propose an automatic approach to generate specialized QA datasets for tail entities and present the associated research challenges. We conduct extensive experiments by employing pretrained LLMs on our newly generated long-tail QA datasets, comparing their performance with and without external resources including Wikipedia and Wikidata knowledge graphs.

Since large language models have approached human-level performance on many tasks, it has become increasingly harder for researchers to find tasks that are still challenging to the models. Failure cases usually come from the long-tail distribution - data that an oracle language model could assign a probability on the lower end of its distribution. Current methodology such as prompt engineering or crowdsourcing are insufficient for creating long-tail examples because humans are constrained by cognitive bias. We propose a Logic-Induced-Knowledge-Search (LINK) framework for systematically generating long-tail knowledge statements. Grounded by a symbolic rule, we search for long-tail values for each variable of the rule by first prompting a LLM, then verifying the correctness of the values with a critic, and lastly pushing for the long-tail distribution with a reranker. With this framework we construct a dataset, Logic-Induced-Long-Tail (LINT), consisting of 200 symbolic rules and 50K knowledge statements spanning across four domains. Human annotations find that 84% of the statements in LINT are factually correct. In contrast, ChatGPT and GPT4 struggle with directly generating long-tail statements under the guidance of logic rules, each only getting 56% and 78% of their statements correct. Moreover, their "long-tail" generations in fact fall into the higher likelihood range, and thus are not really long-tail. Our findings suggest that LINK is effective for generating data in the long-tail distribution while enforcing quality. LINT can be useful for systematically evaluating LLMs' capabilities in the long-tail distribution. We challenge the models with a simple entailment classification task using samples from LINT. We find that ChatGPT and GPT4's capability in identifying incorrect knowledge drop by ~3% in the long-tail distribution compared to head distribution.