Resolving Knowledge Conflicts in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.00935v3
• Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 05:23:56 GMT
• Title: Resolving Knowledge Conflicts in Large Language Models
• Authors: Yike Wang, Shangbin Feng, Heng Wang, Weijia Shi, Vidhisha Balachandran, Tianxing He, Yulia Tsvetkov,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) often encounter knowledge conflicts. We ask what are the desiderata for LLMs when a knowledge conflict arises and whether existing LLMs fulfill them. We introduce an evaluation framework for simulating contextual knowledge conflicts.
• Score: 46.903549751371415
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often encounter knowledge conflicts, scenarios where discrepancy arises between the internal parametric knowledge of LLMs and non-parametric information provided in the prompt context. In this work we ask what are the desiderata for LLMs when a knowledge conflict arises and whether existing LLMs fulfill them. We posit that LLMs should 1) identify knowledge conflicts, 2) pinpoint conflicting information segments, and 3) provide distinct answers or viewpoints in conflicting scenarios. To this end, we introduce an evaluation framework for simulating contextual knowledge conflicts and quantitatively evaluating to what extent LLMs achieve these goals. It includes diverse and complex situations of knowledge conflict, knowledge from diverse entities and domains, two synthetic conflict creation methods, and settings with progressively increasing difficulty to reflect realistic knowledge conflicts. Extensive experiments with the framework reveal that while LLMs perform well in identifying the existence of knowledge conflicts, they struggle to determine the specific conflicting knowledge and produce a response with distinct answers amidst conflicting information. To address these challenges, we propose new instruction-based approaches that augment LLMs to better achieve the three goals. Further analysis shows that abilities to tackle knowledge conflicts are greatly impacted by factors such as knowledge domain, while generating robust responses to knowledge conflict scenarios remains an open research question.

Related papers

• Is Cognition consistent with Perception? Assessing and Mitigating Multimodal Knowledge Conflicts in Document Understanding [15.828455477224516]
  As a multimodal task, document understanding requires models to possess both perceptual and cognitive abilities. In this paper, we define the conflicts between cognition and perception as Cognition and Perception (C&P) knowledge conflicts. We propose a novel method called Multimodal Knowledge Consistency Fine-tuning to mitigate the C&P knowledge conflicts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T11:28:50Z)
• Insight Over Sight? Exploring the Vision-Knowledge Conflicts in Multimodal LLMs [55.74117540987519]
  This paper explores the problem of commonsense-level vision-knowledge conflict in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) We introduce an automated pipeline, augmented with human-in-the-loop quality control, to establish a benchmark aimed at simulating and assessing the conflicts in MLLMs. We evaluate the conflict-resolution capabilities of nine representative MLLMs across various model families and find a noticeable over-reliance on textual queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:31:17Z)
• ECon: On the Detection and Resolution of Evidence Conflicts [56.89209046429291]
  The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly influenced the quality of information in decision-making systems. This study introduces a method for generating diverse, validated evidence conflicts to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T07:41:17Z)
• ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLM [36.332500824079844]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive advancements across numerous disciplines, yet the critical issue of knowledge conflicts has rarely been studied. We present ConflictBank, the first comprehensive benchmark developed to evaluate knowledge conflicts from three aspects. Our investigation delves into four model families and twelve LLM instances, meticulously analyzing conflicts stemming from misinformation, temporal discrepancies, and semantic divergences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T02:33:13Z)
• Untangle the KNOT: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills in Large Language Models [51.72963030032491]
  Knowledge documents for large language models (LLMs) may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge. We construct a new dataset, dubbed KNOT, for knowledge conflict resolution examination in the form of question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T16:40:11Z)
• Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey [24.731074825915833]
  Survey focuses on three categories of knowledge conflicts: context-memory, inter-context, and intra-memory conflict. These conflicts can significantly impact the trustworthiness and performance of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T08:02:23Z)
• Don't Hallucinate, Abstain: Identifying LLM Knowledge Gaps via Multi-LLM Collaboration [39.603649838876294]
  We study approaches to identify LLM knowledge gaps and abstain from answering questions when knowledge gaps are present. Motivated by their failures in self-reflection and over-reliance on held-out sets, we propose two novel approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T06:11:49Z)
• Knowledge Crosswords: Geometric Knowledge Reasoning with Large Language Models [49.23348672822087]
  We propose Knowledge Crosswords, a benchmark consisting of incomplete knowledge networks bounded by structured factual constraints. The novel setting of geometric knowledge reasoning necessitates new LM abilities beyond existing atomic/linear multi-hop QA. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate existing LLMs and approaches on Knowledge Crosswords.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T15:43:53Z)
• Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation [109.8527403904657]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) possess unwavering confidence in their knowledge and cannot handle the conflict between internal and external knowledge well. Retrieval augmentation proves to be an effective approach in enhancing LLMs' awareness of knowledge boundaries. We propose a simple method to dynamically utilize supporting documents with our judgement strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T16:46:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.