EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jenny Reddish
dblp:396/6221
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Large Language Models' Expert-level Global History Knowledge Benchmark (HiST-LLM) · NeurIPS 2024 |
Computational social science and digital humanities
digital history |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Large Language Models' Expert-level Global History Knowledge Benchmark (HiST-LLM) · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
benchmarking · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Large Language Models' Expert-level Global History Knowledge Benchmark (HiST-LLM)abstractLarge Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to transform humanities and social science research, yet their history knowledge and comprehension at a graduate level remains untested. Benchmarking LLMs in history is particularly challenging, given that human knowledge of history is inherently unbalanced, with more information available on Western history and recent periods. We introduce the History Seshat Test for LLMs (HiST-LLM), based on a subset of the Seshat Global History Databank, which provides a structured representation of human historical knowledge, containing 36,000 data points across 600 historical societies and over 2,700 scholarly references. This dataset covers every major world region from the Neolithic period to the Industrial Revolution and includes information reviewed and assembled by history experts and graduate research assistants. Using this dataset, we benchmark a total of seven models from the Gemini, OpenAI, and Llama families. We find that, in a four-choice format, LLMs have a balanced accuracy ranging from 33.6% (Llama-3.1-8B) to 46% (GPT-4-Turbo), outperforming random guessing (25%) but falling short of expert comprehension. LLMs perform better on earlier historical periods. Regionally, performance is more even but still better for the Americas and lowest in Oceania and Sub-Saharan Africa for the more advanced models. Our benchmark shows that while LLMs possess some expert-level historical knowledge, there is considerable room for improvement. Jakob Hauser, Dániel Kondor, Jenny Reddish, Majid Benam, Enrico Cioni, Federica Villa, James Bennett, Daniel Hoyer, Pieter Francois, Peter Turchin, R. Maria del Rio Chanona |
NeurIPS | 3 |