Untangle the KNOT: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03577v1
• Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:40:11 GMT
• Title: Untangle the KNOT: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills in Large Language Models
• Authors: Yantao Liu, Zijun Yao, Xin Lv, Yuchen Fan, Shulin Cao, Jifan Yu, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li,
• Abstract summary: Knowledge documents for large language models (LLMs) may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge.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.
• Score: 51.72963030032491
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Providing knowledge documents for large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a promising solution to update the static knowledge inherent in their parameters. However, knowledge in the document may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge in the LLMs' parameters. This leads to the necessity of examining the capability of LLMs to assimilate supplemental external knowledge that conflicts with their memory. While previous studies have explained to what extent LLMs extract conflicting knowledge from the provided text, they neglect the necessity to reason with conflicting knowledge. Furthermore, there lack a detailed analysis on strategies to enable LLMs to resolve conflicting knowledge via prompting, decoding strategy, and supervised fine-tuning. To address these limitations, we construct a new dataset, dubbed KNOT, for knowledge conflict resolution examination in the form of question answering. KNOT facilitates in-depth analysis by dividing reasoning with conflicting knowledge into three levels: (1) Direct Extraction, which directly extracts conflicting knowledge to answer questions. (2) Explicit Reasoning, which reasons with conflicting knowledge when the reasoning path is explicitly provided in the question. (3) Implicit Reasoning, where reasoning with conflicting knowledge requires LLMs to infer the reasoning path independently to answer questions. We also conduct extensive experiments on KNOT to establish empirical guidelines for LLMs to utilize conflicting knowledge in complex circumstances. Dataset and associated codes can be accessed at https://github.com/THU-KEG/KNOT .

Related papers

• Prompting Large Language Models with Knowledge Graphs for Question Answering Involving Long-tail Facts [50.06633829833144]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective in performing various NLP tasks, but struggle to handle tasks that require extensive, real-world knowledge. We propose a benchmark that requires knowledge of long-tail facts for answering the involved questions. Our experiments show that LLMs alone struggle with answering these questions, especially when the long-tail level is high or rich knowledge is required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T15:10:20Z)
• Is Knowledge All Large Language Models Needed for Causal Reasoning? [11.476877330365664]
  This paper explores the causal reasoning of large language models (LLMs) to enhance their interpretability and reliability in advancing artificial intelligence. We propose a novel causal attribution model that utilizes do-operators" for constructing counterfactual scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T04:51:46Z)
• KnowledgeNavigator: Leveraging Large Language Models for Enhanced Reasoning over Knowledge Graph [11.808990571175269]
  Large language model (LLM) has achieved outstanding performance on various downstream tasks with its powerful natural language understanding and zero-shot capability, but LLM still suffers from knowledge limitation. We propose a novel framework KnowledgeNavigator to address these challenges by efficiently and accurately retrieving external knowledge from knowledge graph. We evaluate KnowledgeNavigator on multiple public KGQA benchmarks, the experiments show the framework has great effectiveness and generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-26T04:22:56Z)
• RECALL: A Benchmark for LLMs Robustness against External Counterfactual Knowledge [69.79676144482792]
  This study aims to evaluate the ability of LLMs to distinguish reliable information from external knowledge. Our benchmark consists of two tasks, Question Answering and Text Generation, and for each task, we provide models with a context containing counterfactual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T13:24:19Z)
• Learn to Refuse: Making Large Language Models More Controllable and Reliable through Knowledge Scope Limitation and Refusal Mechanism [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive language understanding and generation capabilities. These models are not flawless and often produce responses that contain errors or misinformation. We propose a refusal mechanism that instructs LLMs to refuse to answer challenging questions in order to avoid errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T07:20:49Z)
• Resolving Knowledge Conflicts in Large Language Models [46.903549751371415]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T06:57:45Z)
• "Merge Conflicts!" Exploring the Impacts of External Distractors to Parametric Knowledge Graphs [15.660128743249611]
  Large language models (LLMs) acquire extensive knowledge during pre-training, known as their parametric knowledge. LLMs inevitably require external knowledge during their interactions with users. This raises a crucial question: How will LLMs respond when external knowledge interferes with their parametric knowledge?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T17:47:59Z)
• Eva-KELLM: A New Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Editing of LLMs [54.22416829200613]
  Eva-KELLM is a new benchmark for evaluating knowledge editing of large language models. Experimental results indicate that the current methods for knowledge editing using raw documents are not effective in yielding satisfactory results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-19T09:17:19Z)
• Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation [91.30946119104111]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) possess unwavering confidence in their capabilities to respond to questions. Retrieval augmentation proves to be an effective approach in enhancing LLMs' awareness of knowledge boundaries. We also find that LLMs have a propensity to rely on the provided retrieval results when formulating answers.
  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.