Benchmark Almanac

Kitab

GPT-4 (snapshot unspecified) 31% tops its leaderboard
Dropped

Models list books by a given author that meet extra constraints, such as publication dates or title words. Scored by precision and constraint satisfaction.

Released
October 2023
Kind
Long-form factuality
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Last in a launch post
April 2025, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
April 2025

In the authors’ words

We study the ability of state-of-the art models to answer constraint satisfaction queries for information retrieval (e.g., 'a list of ice cream shops in San Diego'). In the past, such queries were considered to be tasks that could only be solved via web-search or knowledge bases. More recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated initial emergent abilities in this task. However, many current retrieval benchmarks are either saturated or do not measure constraint satisfaction. Motivated by rising concerns around factual incorrectness and hallucinations of LLMs, we present KITAB, a new dataset for measuring constraint satisfaction abilities of language models. KITAB consists of book-related data across more than 600 authors and 13,000 queries, and also offers an associated dynamic data collection and constraint verification approach for acquiring similar test data for other authors. Our extended experiments on GPT4 and GPT3.5 characterize and decouple common failure modes across dimensions such as information popularity, constraint types, and context availability. Results show that in the absence of context, models exhibit severe limitations as measured by irrelevant information, factual errors, and incompleteness, many of which exacerbate as information popularity decreases. While context availability mitigates irrelevant information, it is not helpful for satisfying constraints, identifying fundamental barriers to constraint satisfaction. We open source our contributions to foster further research on improving constraint satisfaction abilities of future models.

Abstract of KITAB: Evaluating LLMs on Constraint Satisfaction for Information Retrieval (arXiv:2310.15511, CC0)
2
Entries on its own leaderboard, 0 models we track
2
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

GPT-4 (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 31%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

  1. 1 GPT-4 (snapshot unspecified) WITH-CONTEXT 31%
  2. 2 GPT-3.5 (snapshot unspecified) WITH-CONTEXT 15%

Source: Official Kitab leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-4 (snapshot unspecified) 31% WITH-CONTEXT Official leaderboard
2 GPT-3.5 (snapshot unspecified) 15% WITH-CONTEXT Official leaderboard

No launch post has listed it since April 2025

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Microsoft
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Apr 30, 2025 Phi-4-reasoning Kitab, four settings, no overall score
Apr 30, 2025 Phi-4-Reasoning-plus Kitab, four settings, no overall score

2 system cards report it, from 1 lab

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Apr 30, 2025 Phi-4-reasoning technical report Kitab, 4 cells with no overall: no-context precision 23.2, with-context precision 93.8, no-context recall 4.9, with-context recall 74.8 (Table 2) Hallucination
Apr 30, 2025 Phi-4-Reasoning-plus technical report Kitab, 4 cells with no overall: no-context precision 27.6, with-context precision 93.6, no-context recall 6.3, with-context recall 75.4 (Table 2) Hallucination

More in Factuality

All 74 in Factuality
  • SimpleVQA In use Models answer 2,025 short factual questions about images across 9 tasks and 9 topics. An LLM judge grades answers against fixed references. Qwen3.7-Plus 81.7%
  • HallusionBench In use Models answer 1,129 yes or no questions about 346 images, built in pairs to expose language hallucination and visual illusion. Scored by accuracy. Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 73.5%
  • SimpleQA Verified In use 1,000 human-verified, de-duplicated short-answer factual questions measuring parametric knowledge. Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.5%
  • Kimi Hallu Bench In use Models answer hard prompts drawn from practical work tasks. Fact-checking agents score the share of claims that are hallucinated. GPT-6 Astra 4.20%
  • Internal adversarially-designed factuality evaluations In use Models answer adversarial questions in nine categories such as history, math and code. Scored on agreement with human ideal responses. GPT-6 Luna 7.60%
  • AA-Omniscience v1.1 In use Models answer 3,000 knowledge questions in six domains without tools and may abstain. The index adds correct answers and subtracts wrong ones. Inkling 2 Small 16.1