Blinded by Generated Contexts: How Language Models Merge Generated and Retrieved Contexts When Knowledge Conflicts?

Overview

• This paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) merge different types of contextual information, including information generated by the LLM itself and information retrieved from external sources.
• The researchers formulate a systematic framework to identify whether an LLM's response is attributed to generated or retrieved context, by creating datasets with conflicting contexts.
• The experiments reveal a significant bias in several LLMs (GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2) to favor generated contexts, even when they provide incorrect information.
• The paper offers insights into the factors contributing to this bias and the implications for advancing LLM augmentation methods and addressing the risk of generated misinformation.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2 have become incredibly powerful at generating human-like text. However, these models can sometimes generate inaccurate or misleading information. To address this, researchers have been exploring ways to enhance LLMs by providing them with additional contextual information, such as information retrieved from external sources.

This paper investigates how LLMs actually combine these different types of contextual information - the information they generate themselves and the information they retrieve from external sources. The researchers create special datasets where each question is paired with both generated and retrieved contexts, but only one of them contains the correct answer. By analyzing how the LLMs respond in these scenarios, the researchers can better understand the LLMs' decision-making process.

The key finding is that several LLMs, including GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2, have a significant bias towards favoring the information they generate themselves, even when that information is incorrect. The researchers identify two main reasons for this bias:

1. The information generated by the LLMs tends to be more similar to the original question, making it more likely to be selected.
2. The way the retrieved information is presented (a process called "segmentation") can sometimes make it less useful for the LLM.

These insights are important for advancing the methods used to augment LLMs with additional information and for addressing the risk of LLMs generating misinformation when they are combined with external information sources.

Technical Explanation

The researchers formulate a systematic framework to investigate how LLMs merge diverse contexts, including both generated and retrieved contexts. They construct datasets where each question is paired with two conflicting contexts - one generated by the LLM and one retrieved from an external source - but only one of them contains the correct answer.

Their experiments reveal that several LLMs, including GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2, exhibit a significant bias towards favoring the generated contexts, even when those contexts provide incorrect information. The researchers identify two key factors contributing to this bias:

1. Contextual Similarity: The contexts generated by the LLMs typically show greater similarity to the questions, increasing their likelihood of being selected by the model.
2. Segmentation Disruption: The segmentation process used to present the retrieved contexts can disrupt their completeness, hindering their full utilization by the LLMs.

These findings offer valuable insights for advancing current LLM augmentation methods and highlight the potential risk of generated misinformation in retrieval-augmented LLMs.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of how LLMs merge diverse contexts, but it's important to note some potential caveats and areas for further research.

One limitation is that the experiments were conducted on a limited set of LLMs (GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2). It would be valuable to extend the investigation to a broader range of models to assess the generalizability of the findings.

Additionally, the paper focuses on the specific case of conflicting contexts, where only one of the provided contexts contains the correct answer. While this is a useful experimental setup, it may not fully capture the complexity of real-world scenarios where multiple sources of information, both accurate and inaccurate, are available.

Further research could explore how LLMs handle more nuanced situations, where the generated and retrieved contexts may both contain relevant information, but to varying degrees of accuracy and completeness. This could provide additional insights into the LLMs' decision-making process and inform the development of more robust context integration strategies.

Conclusion

This paper presents a systematic investigation into how large language models (LLMs) merge diverse contexts, including both generated and retrieved information. The key finding is that several LLMs, such as GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2, exhibit a significant bias towards favoring the information they generate themselves, even when it is incorrect.

The researchers identify two main factors contributing to this bias: the greater contextual similarity of the generated information and the disruptive effect of the segmentation process on the retrieved information. These insights offer valuable guidance for advancing current LLM augmentation methods and addressing the risk of generated misinformation in retrieval-augmented LLMs.

As the field of large language models continues to evolve, this research highlights the importance of understanding how these models process and integrate different sources of information, in order to develop more robust and reliable AI systems.