From Internal Conflict to Contextual Adaptation of Language Models

Read original: arXiv:2407.17023 - Published 7/25/2024 by Sara Vera Marjanovi'c, Haeun Yu, Pepa Atanasova, Maria Maistro, Christina Lioma, Isabelle Augenstein
Total Score

0

From Internal Conflict to Contextual Adaptation of Language Models

Sign in to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • This paper explores how language models can be adapted to handle contextual information and resolve internal conflicts in their knowledge.
  • The researchers investigate how language models can be made more robust and reliable by addressing issues like contradictions in their training data.
  • The key focus is on developing techniques to enhance the contextual adaptation of language models, enabling them to better navigate complex real-world scenarios.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses how language models, the AI systems that generate human-like text, can be improved to handle contextual information and resolve conflicts in their knowledge more effectively.

From Internal Conflict to Contextual Adaptation of Language Models looks at ways to make these models more robust and reliable. Language models are trained on huge amounts of text data, but that data can contain contradictions or inconsistencies. The researchers explore techniques to help the models navigate these complexities and adapt their responses based on the specific context.

The goal is to develop methods that allow language models to better understand the nuances of language and make more appropriate, coherent responses, rather than just generating generic text. This could make the models more useful in real-world applications where contextual understanding is crucial.

Technical Explanation

The paper examines how language models can be adapted to leverage contextual information and resolve internal conflicts in their knowledge.

The researchers investigate the impact of contextual factors on language model performance, showing that parametric and non-parametric context can significantly affect tasks like reading comprehension.

They then explore techniques to discern and resolve knowledge conflicts through adaptive decoding, allowing the models to recognize and reconcile contradictory information.

Additionally, the paper discusses how language models can be "blinded" by generated contexts, leading to suboptimal performance, and proposes methods to mitigate this issue.

The proposed approaches aim to enhance the contextual adaptation capabilities of language models, enabling them to navigate complex real-world scenarios more reliably.

Critical Analysis

The paper acknowledges that while language models have made impressive progress, they still struggle with issues like internal knowledge conflicts and contextual sensitivity. The researchers provide a thorough examination of these challenges and propose promising techniques to address them.

One potential limitation is the focus on specific tasks and datasets, which may not fully capture the diversity of real-world language use. Further research and testing across a broader range of applications would be valuable to validate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the ethical implications of more advanced language models, such as the potential for misuse or the societal impacts of more accurate and contextually-aware text generation. These are important considerations that warrant further exploration.

Overall, the paper presents a thoughtful and technically sound approach to enhancing the robustness and reliability of language models, which could have significant implications for their practical applications.

Conclusion

This paper explores innovative techniques to enable language models to better handle contextual information and resolve internal knowledge conflicts. By developing methods for adaptive decoding and mitigating the "blinding" effects of generated contexts, the researchers aim to make these AI systems more robust and effective in real-world scenarios.

The proposed approaches represent an important step towards language models that can navigate complex linguistic nuances and provide more appropriate, coherent responses. As language models continue to advance, addressing these challenges will be crucial to ensuring their safe and beneficial deployment in various applications.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

From Internal Conflict to Contextual Adaptation of Language Models
Total Score

0

From Internal Conflict to Contextual Adaptation of Language Models

Sara Vera Marjanovi'c, Haeun Yu, Pepa Atanasova, Maria Maistro, Christina Lioma, Isabelle Augenstein

Knowledge-intensive language understanding tasks require Language Models (LMs) to integrate relevant context, mitigating their inherent weaknesses, such as incomplete or outdated knowledge. Nevertheless, studies indicate that LMs often ignore the provided context as it can conflict with the pre-existing LM's memory learned during pre-training. Moreover, conflicting knowledge can already be present in the LM's parameters, termed intra-memory conflict. Existing works have studied the two types of knowledge conflicts only in isolation. We conjecture that the (degree of) intra-memory conflicts can in turn affect LM's handling of context-memory conflicts. To study this, we introduce the DYNAMICQA dataset, which includes facts with a temporal dynamic nature where a fact can change with a varying time frequency and disputable dynamic facts, which can change depending on the viewpoint. DYNAMICQA is the first to include real-world knowledge conflicts and provide context to study the link between the different types of knowledge conflicts. With the proposed dataset, we assess the use of uncertainty for measuring the intra-memory conflict and introduce a novel Coherent Persuasion (CP) score to evaluate the context's ability to sway LM's semantic output. Our extensive experiments reveal that static facts, which are unlikely to change, are more easily updated with additional context, relative to temporal and disputable facts.

Read more

7/25/2024

Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey
Total Score

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 more

6/26/2024

💬

Total Score

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 more

9/6/2024

ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLM
Total Score

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 more

8/23/2024