ContraDoc: Understanding Self-Contradictions in Documents with Large Language Models
0
🤔
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces ContraDoc, the first human-annotated dataset to study self-contradictions in long documents across multiple domains.
- The researchers analyze the capabilities of four state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) - GPT3.5, GPT4, PaLM2, and LLaMAv2 - on this dataset.
- While GPT4 performs the best and can outperform humans on this task, the models still struggle with self-contradictions that require more nuance and context.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can perform a wide range of document-level tasks, such as classification, summarization, and question-answering. However, little research has been done on their ability to identify self-contradictions within long documents.
To address this gap, the researchers created a new dataset called ContraDoc, which contains human-annotated examples of self-contradictions in long documents across different topics. They then tested four state-of-the-art LLMs on this dataset to see how well they could detect the contradictions.
The results showed that the GPT4 model performed the best, even outperforming human annotators in some cases. However, the models still struggled with more nuanced and contextual contradictions, suggesting that they have room for improvement in this area.
By creating this dataset and evaluating LLM performance, the researchers hope to Customizing Language Model Responses through Contrastive Context Learning and Untangling the Knot: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills in identifying and resolving self-contradictions in long documents, which is an important capability for Large Language Models to Help Humans Verify Truthfulness and Addressing Pitfalls of Conversational LLMs in News Debiasing.
Technical Explanation
The researchers created a new dataset called ContraDoc, which contains human-annotated examples of self-contradictions in long documents across multiple domains, such as science, history, and current events. The documents vary in length, and the contradictions themselves can take different forms, such as direct contradictions, indirect contradictions, and contradictions that require more contextual understanding.
To evaluate the performance of LLMs on this task, the researchers tested four state-of-the-art models: GPT3.5, GPT4, PaLM2, and LLaMAv2. They assessed the models' ability to identify the contradictions in the ContraDoc dataset and compared their performance to that of human annotators.
The results showed that GPT4 outperformed the other models and even surpassed human performance in some cases. However, the models still struggled with more nuanced and contextual contradictions, suggesting that they have room for improvement in this area.
The researchers release the ContraDoc dataset and all the code associated with the experiments, making it available for further research and development in this area.
Critical Analysis
The researchers have made a valuable contribution by creating the ContraDoc dataset and evaluating the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs on the task of detecting self-contradictions in long documents. This research is important because the ability to identify and resolve contradictions is a crucial skill for Large Language Models to Help Humans Verify Truthfulness and Addressing Pitfalls of Conversational LLMs in News Debiasing.
However, the researchers acknowledge that the models still struggle with more nuanced and contextual contradictions, which suggests that there is room for further improvement in this area. Additionally, the dataset is limited to a relatively small number of documents, and it would be interesting to see how the models perform on a larger and more diverse dataset.
Furthermore, the researchers do not explore the potential reasons why the models struggle with certain types of contradictions, such as whether it is due to limitations in their knowledge, reasoning abilities, or contextual understanding. Investigating these underlying factors could provide valuable insights for Customizing Language Model Responses through Contrastive Context Learning and Untangling the Knot: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills.
Conclusion
This research introduces a new dataset, ContraDoc, to study the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in detecting self-contradictions in long documents. While the GPT4 model outperforms humans on this task, the models still struggle with more nuanced and contextual contradictions, suggesting that there is room for further improvement.
By creating this dataset and evaluating LLM performance, the researchers aim to advance the field of Large Language Models to Help Humans Verify Truthfulness and Addressing Pitfalls of Conversational LLMs in News Debiasing, which is crucial for ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of these powerful AI systems.
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
ContraDoc: Understanding Self-Contradictions in Documents with Large Language Models
Jierui Li, Vipul Raheja, Dhruv Kumar
In recent times, large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on various document-level tasks such as document classification, summarization, and question-answering. However, research on understanding their capabilities on the task of self-contradictions in long documents has been very limited. In this work, we introduce ContraDoc, the first human-annotated dataset to study self-contradictions in long documents across multiple domains, varying document lengths, self-contradictions types, and scope. We then analyze the current capabilities of four state-of-the-art open-source and commercially available LLMs: GPT3.5, GPT4, PaLM2, and LLaMAv2 on this dataset. While GPT4 performs the best and can outperform humans on this task, we find that it is still unreliable and struggles with self-contradictions that require more nuance and context. We release the dataset and all the code associated with the experiments (https://github.com/ddhruvkr/CONTRADOC).
Read more4/16/2024
↗️
0
Dissecting Dissonance: Benchmarking Large Multimodal Models Against Self-Contradictory Instructions
Jin Gao, Lei Gan, Yuankai Li, Yixin Ye, Dequan Wang
Large multimodal models (LMMs) excel in adhering to human instructions. However, self-contradictory instructions may arise due to the increasing trend of multimodal interaction and context length, which is challenging for language beginners and vulnerable populations. We introduce the Self-Contradictory Instructions benchmark to evaluate the capability of LMMs in recognizing conflicting commands. It comprises 20,000 conflicts, evenly distributed between language and vision paradigms. It is constructed by a novel automatic dataset creation framework, which expedites the process and enables us to encompass a wide range of instruction forms. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals current LMMs consistently struggle to identify multimodal instruction discordance due to a lack of self-awareness. Hence, we propose the Cognitive Awakening Prompting to inject cognition from external, largely enhancing dissonance detection. The dataset and code are here: https://selfcontradiction.github.io/.
Read more8/6/2024
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
0
Red Teaming Language Models for Contradictory Dialogues
Xiaofei Wen, Bangzheng Li, Tenghao Huang, Muhao Chen
Most language models currently available are prone to self-contradiction during dialogues. To mitigate this issue, this study explores a novel contradictory dialogue processing task that aims to detect and modify contradictory statements in a conversation. This task is inspired by research on context faithfulness and dialogue comprehension, which have demonstrated that the detection and understanding of contradictions often necessitate detailed explanations. We develop a dataset comprising contradictory dialogues, in which one side of the conversation contradicts itself. Each dialogue is accompanied by an explanatory label that highlights the location and details of the contradiction. With this dataset, we present a Red Teaming framework for contradictory dialogue processing. The framework detects and attempts to explain the dialogue, then modifies the existing contradictory content using the explanation. Our experiments demonstrate that the framework improves the ability to detect contradictory dialogues and provides valid explanations. Additionally, it showcases distinct capabilities for modifying such dialogues. Our study highlights the importance of the logical inconsistency problem in conversational AI.
Read more5/20/2024