Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11209v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 09:05:04 GMT
• Title: Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method
• Abstract summary: We show that large language models (LLMs) often struggle to perform faithful reasoning when conflicting knowledge is retrieved.<n>We introduce ConflictQA, a novel benchmark that systematically instantiates conflicts between textual evidence and KG evidence.<n>We also propose XoT, a two-stage explanation-based thinking framework tailored for reasoning over heterogeneous conflicting evidence.
• Score: 23.57320318595907
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across a wide range of applications especially when augmented by external knowledge through retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Despite their widespread adoption, recent studies have shown that LLMs often struggle to perform faithful reasoning when conflicting knowledge is retrieved. However, existing work primarily focuses on conflicts between external knowledge and the parametric knowledge of LLMs, leaving conflicts across external knowledge largely unexplored. Meanwhile, modern RAG systems increasingly emphasize the integration of unstructured text and (semi-)structured data like knowledge graphs (KGs) to improve knowledge completeness and reasoning faithfulness. To address this gap, we introduce ConflictQA, a novel benchmark that systematically instantiates conflicts between textual evidence and KG evidence. Extensive evaluations across representative LLMs reveal that, facing such cross-source conflicts, LLMs often fail to identify reliable evidence for correct reasoning. Instead, LLMs become more sensitive to prompting choices and tend to rely exclusively on either KG or textual evidence, resulting in incorrect responses. Based on these findings, we further propose XoT, a two-stage explanation-based thinking framework tailored for reasoning over heterogeneous conflicting evidence, and verify its effectiveness with extensive experiments.

Related papers

• TruthfulRAG: Resolving Factual-level Conflicts in Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Knowledge Graphs [10.861331756147477]
  We propose TruthfulRAG to resolve factual-level knowledge conflicts in RAG systems.<n>TruthfulRAG constructs Knowledge Graphs (KGs) by systematically extracting triples from retrieved content.<n>Extensive experiments reveal that TruthfulRAG outperforms existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T14:49:44Z)
• That's Deprecated! Understanding, Detecting, and Steering Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models for Code Generation [55.78914774437411]
  Large language models (LLMs) behave when faced with discrepancies between their parametric knowledge and conflicting information contained in a prompt.<n>We propose a domain-agnostic framework for constructing and interpreting such conflicts.<n>We show that activation-level steering can achieve up to a textbf12.6% improvement in steering success over a random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T22:27:56Z)
• Probing Latent Knowledge Conflict for Faithful Retrieval-Augmented Generation [46.03923254984181]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a powerful paradigm to enhance the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Existing approaches to improving contextual faithfulness rely on external interventions, such as prompt engineering, decoding constraints, or reward-based fine-tuning.<n>We propose CLEAR (Conflict-Localized and Enhanced Attention for RAG), a framework that decomposes context into fine-grained sentence-level knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T12:48:24Z)
• KCR: Resolving Long-Context Knowledge Conflicts via Reasoning in LLMs [4.4180007117819935]
  We propose the Knowledge Conflict Reasoning (KCR) framework, which enhances the ability of LLMs to resolve conflicting knowledge.<n>Key idea of KCR is to train backbone LLMs to establish a correct reasoning process by rewarding them for selecting and adhering to the context.<n>We employ Reinforcement Learning to encourage the model to learn the paradigm of reasoning process that follows correct reasoning paths rather than the incorrect counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T09:09:50Z)
• Accommodate Knowledge Conflicts in Retrieval-augmented LLMs: Towards Reliable Response Generation in the Wild [11.058848731627233]
  Large language models (LLMs) have advanced information retrieval systems.<n>LLMs often face knowledge conflicts between internal memory and retrievaled external information.<n>We propose Swin-VIB, a novel framework that integrates a pipeline of variational information bottleneck models into adaptive augmentation of retrieved information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T14:40:31Z)
• Improving Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Language Models through Dialectic Reasoning Argumentations [65.11348389219887]
  We introduce Dialectic-RAG (DRAG), a modular approach that evaluates retrieved information by comparing, contrasting, and resolving conflicting perspectives.<n>We show the impact of our framework both as an in-context learning strategy and for constructing demonstrations to instruct smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T06:55:15Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.