Conflicts in Texts: Data, Implications and Challenges

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19472v1
• Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 04:24:01 GMT
• Title: Conflicts in Texts: Data, Implications and Challenges
• Authors: Siyi Liu, Dan Roth,
• Abstract summary: Conflicts could reflect the complexity of situations, changes that need to be explained and dealt with, difficulties in data annotation, and mistakes in generated outputs.<n>This survey categorizes these conflicts into three key areas: (1) natural texts on the web, where factual inconsistencies, subjective biases, and multiple perspectives introduce contradictions; (2) human-annotated data, where annotator disagreements, mistakes, and societal biases impact model training; and (3) model interactions, where hallucinations and knowledge conflicts emerge during deployment.<n>We highlight key challenges and future directions for developing conflict-aware NLP systems that can reason over and reconcile conflicting information more effectively
• Score: 58.03478157713084
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As NLP models become increasingly integrated into real-world applications, it becomes clear that there is a need to address the fact that models often rely on and generate conflicting information. Conflicts could reflect the complexity of situations, changes that need to be explained and dealt with, difficulties in data annotation, and mistakes in generated outputs. In all cases, disregarding the conflicts in data could result in undesired behaviors of models and undermine NLP models' reliability and trustworthiness. This survey categorizes these conflicts into three key areas: (1) natural texts on the web, where factual inconsistencies, subjective biases, and multiple perspectives introduce contradictions; (2) human-annotated data, where annotator disagreements, mistakes, and societal biases impact model training; and (3) model interactions, where hallucinations and knowledge conflicts emerge during deployment. While prior work has addressed some of these conflicts in isolation, we unify them under the broader concept of conflicting information, analyze their implications, and discuss mitigation strategies. We highlight key challenges and future directions for developing conflict-aware NLP systems that can reason over and reconcile conflicting information more effectively.

Related papers

• KOALA: Knowledge Conflict Augmentations for Robustness in Vision Language Models [6.52323086990482]
  segsub is a framework that applies targeted perturbations to image sources to study and improve the robustness of vision language models. Contrary to prior findings, we find VLMs are largely robust to image perturbation. We find a link between hallucinations and image context, with GPT-4o prone to hallucination when presented with highly contextualized counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T00:26:38Z)
• 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)
• AdaCAD: Adaptively Decoding to Balance Conflicts between Contextual and Parametric Knowledge [57.66282463340297]
  Knowledge conflict arises from discrepancies between information in the context of a large language model (LLM) and the knowledge stored in its parameters. We propose a fine-grained, instance-level approach called AdaCAD, which dynamically infers the weight of adjustment based on the degree of conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T16:35:18Z)
• 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)
• Discerning and Resolving Knowledge Conflicts through Adaptive Decoding with Contextual Information-Entropy Constraint [20.543282448771336]
  We propose an adaptive decoding method to discern whether the knowledge conflicts occur and resolve them. Experiments show that COIECD exhibits strong performance and robustness over knowledge conflicts in realistic datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T07:10:30Z)
• Getting Sick After Seeing a Doctor? Diagnosing and Mitigating Knowledge Conflicts in Event Temporal Reasoning [87.92209048521153]
  Event temporal reasoning aims at identifying the temporal relations between two or more events from narratives. Knowledge conflicts arise when there is a mismatch between the actual temporal relations of events in the context and the prior knowledge or biases learned by the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:04:06Z)
• Understanding Interpersonal Conflict Types and their Impact on Perception Classification [7.907976678407914]
  We use a novel annotation scheme and release a new dataset of situations and conflict aspect annotations. We then build a classifier to predict whether someone will perceive the actions of one individual as right or wrong in a given situation. Our findings have important implications for understanding conflict and social norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-18T10:39:35Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)

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.