ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLM
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- ConflictBank is a benchmark for evaluating knowledge conflicts in large language models (LLMs).
- It contains a set of carefully curated fact-based prompts that expose tensions or contradictions in the knowledge encoded within LLMs.
- The benchmark aims to assess how well LLMs handle real-world knowledge conflicts and inconsistencies.
Plain English Explanation
ConflictBank is a tool designed to test the ability of large language models (LLMs) to handle conflicting information. LLMs are AI systems that are trained on vast amounts of text data and can generate human-like responses. However, the knowledge encoded in these models can sometimes be inconsistent or contradictory.
The ConflictBank benchmark presents a set of carefully crafted prompts that expose these knowledge conflicts. For example, a prompt might ask the LLM about the capital of a country, and the model's response might conflict with another piece of information it has about the same country. By evaluating how the LLM handles these types of conflicts, researchers can better understand the model's reasoning capabilities and its ability to navigate the complexities of real-world knowledge.
The goal of ConflictBank is to provide a standardized way to assess the knowledge coherence of LLMs, which is an important aspect of their performance and reliability. By using this benchmark, researchers and developers can identify areas where LLMs struggle with knowledge conflicts and work to improve their ability to handle such challenges.
Technical Explanation
The ConflictBank benchmark consists of a set of carefully curated prompts that expose tensions or contradictions in the knowledge encoded within large language models (LLMs). These prompts are designed to test the models' ability to reason about real-world facts and handle inconsistencies in their knowledge.
The prompts in ConflictBank cover a diverse range of topics, including geography, history, science, and current events. Each prompt consists of a series of statements or questions that may contradict each other or present conflicting information. For example, a prompt might ask about the capital of a country, and then later ask about a different city in the same country that is sometimes mistaken for the capital.
To evaluate the performance of an LLM on ConflictBank, the model is presented with the prompts, and its responses are analyzed for coherence and consistency. Researchers can assess how the model handles the knowledge conflicts, whether it recognizes the contradictions, and how it resolves or reconciles the conflicting information.
The ConflictBank benchmark is designed to be a standardized and comprehensive tool for evaluating the knowledge coherence of LLMs. By using this benchmark, researchers and developers can gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of their models, and work towards improving their ability to handle complex, real-world knowledge.
Critical Analysis
The ConflictBank benchmark represents an important step forward in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs). By focusing on knowledge conflicts and inconsistencies, the benchmark highlights a crucial aspect of LLM performance that has often been overlooked.
One potential limitation of the ConflictBank benchmark is that it may not capture the full range of knowledge-related challenges that LLMs face in real-world applications. The prompts, while carefully designed, may not fully reflect the complexity and contextual nature of knowledge conflicts that can arise in more dynamic, open-ended scenarios.
Additionally, the ConflictBank benchmark focuses primarily on fact-based knowledge conflicts, which may not encompass the broader challenges of reasoning about conflicting beliefs, opinions, or ethical considerations that can also be present in human knowledge and discourse.
Further research could explore ways to expand the ConflictBank benchmark to capture a wider range of knowledge-related challenges, including the ability of LLMs to handle contextual adaptation and reasoning about complex, ambiguous, or subjective information.
Conclusion
ConflictBank is a valuable benchmark for evaluating the knowledge coherence of large language models (LLMs). By exposing tensions and contradictions in the knowledge encoded within these models, the benchmark provides a standardized way to assess their reasoning capabilities and identify areas for improvement.
The insights gained from using ConflictBank can inform the development of more robust and reliable LLMs, which will be increasingly important as these models are deployed in real-world applications that require consistent and coherent knowledge. Continued research and refinement of ConflictBank and similar benchmarks will be crucial for advancing the field of natural language processing and ensuring the safe and trustworthy deployment of large language models.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLM
Zhaochen Su, Jun Zhang, Xiaoye Qu, Tong Zhu, Yanshu Li, Jiashuo Sun, Juntao Li, Min Zhang, Yu Cheng
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive advancements across numerous disciplines, yet the critical issue of knowledge conflicts, a major source of hallucinations, has rarely been studied. Only a few research explored the conflicts between the inherent knowledge of LLMs and the retrieved contextual knowledge. However, a thorough assessment of knowledge conflict in LLMs is still missing. Motivated by this research gap, we present ConflictBank, the first comprehensive benchmark developed to systematically evaluate knowledge conflicts from three aspects: (i) conflicts encountered in retrieved knowledge, (ii) conflicts within the models' encoded knowledge, and (iii) the interplay between these conflict forms. Our investigation delves into four model families and twelve LLM instances, meticulously analyzing conflicts stemming from misinformation, temporal discrepancies, and semantic divergences. Based on our proposed novel construction framework, we create 7,453,853 claim-evidence pairs and 553,117 QA pairs. We present numerous findings on model scale, conflict causes, and conflict types. We hope our ConflictBank benchmark will help the community better understand model behavior in conflicts and develop more reliable LLMs.
Read more8/23/2024
0
Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey
Rongwu Xu, Zehan Qi, Zhijiang Guo, Cunxiang Wang, Hongru Wang, Yue Zhang, Wei Xu
This survey provides an in-depth analysis of knowledge conflicts for large language models (LLMs), highlighting the complex challenges they encounter when blending contextual and parametric knowledge. Our focus is on three categories of knowledge conflicts: context-memory, inter-context, and intra-memory conflict. These conflicts can significantly impact the trustworthiness and performance of LLMs, especially in real-world applications where noise and misinformation are common. By categorizing these conflicts, exploring the causes, examining the behaviors of LLMs under such conflicts, and reviewing available solutions, this survey aims to shed light on strategies for improving the robustness of LLMs, thereby serving as a valuable resource for advancing research in this evolving area.
Read more6/26/2024
💬
0
Resolving Knowledge Conflicts in Large Language Models
Yike Wang, Shangbin Feng, Heng Wang, Weijia Shi, Vidhisha Balachandran, Tianxing He, Yulia Tsvetkov
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 KNOWLEDGE CONFLICT, an evaluation framework for simulating contextual knowledge conflicts and quantitatively evaluating to what extent LLMs achieve these goals. KNOWLEDGE CONFLICT 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 KNOWLEDGE CONFLICT 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 and prompt text, while generating robust responses to knowledge conflict scenarios remains an open research question.
Read more9/6/2024
0
WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia
Yufang Hou, Alessandra Pascale, Javier Carnerero-Cano, Tigran Tchrakian, Radu Marinescu, Elizabeth Daly, Inkit Padhi, Prasanna Sattigeri
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs), such as hallucinations and outdated information. However, it remains unclear how LLMs handle knowledge conflicts arising from different augmented retrieved passages, especially when these passages originate from the same source and have equal trustworthiness. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions that have varying answers based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia, a dataset widely regarded as a high-quality pre-training resource for most LLMs. Specifically, we introduce WikiContradict, a benchmark consisting of 253 high-quality, human-annotated instances designed to assess LLM performance when augmented with retrieved passages containing real-world knowledge conflicts. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages. Through rigorous human evaluations on a subset of WikiContradict instances involving 5 LLMs and over 3,500 judgements, we shed light on the behaviour and limitations of these models. For instance, when provided with two passages containing contradictory facts, all models struggle to generate answers that accurately reflect the conflicting nature of the context, especially for implicit conflicts requiring reasoning. Since human evaluation is costly, we also introduce an automated model that estimates LLM performance using a strong open-source language model, achieving an F-score of 0.8. Using this automated metric, we evaluate more than 1,500 answers from seven LLMs across all WikiContradict instances. To facilitate future work, we release WikiContradict on: https://ibm.biz/wikicontradict.
Read more6/21/2024