Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey
2403.08319
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper provides a comprehensive survey on the topic of knowledge conflicts in large language models (LLMs).
- The authors discuss various types of knowledge conflicts that can arise in LLMs, such as context-memory conflicts, cross-lingual knowledge barriers, and contradictory factual knowledge.
- The paper also reviews relevant research on addressing these challenges, including techniques for efficient knowledge infusion, untangling conflicting reasoning skills, and evaluating real-world knowledge.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses a significant challenge facing large language models (LLMs) - the issue of knowledge conflicts. LLMs are trained on vast amounts of data, which can sometimes lead to contradictory or inconsistent knowledge being stored in their internal representations.
For example, an LLM may have learned that the capital of France is Paris, but it may also have learned that the capital is Lyon. This type of "context-memory conflict" can cause the model to provide different, potentially incorrect answers depending on the specific context it's given.
The paper also examines other types of knowledge conflicts, such as cross-lingual barriers (where an LLM's knowledge in one language doesn't translate well to another) and contradictory factual knowledge (where the model has learned conflicting "facts" about the world).
The researchers review various approaches that have been proposed to address these challenges, such as techniques for efficiently infusing knowledge from knowledge graphs into LLMs, methods for untangling conflicting reasoning skills, and the development of benchmarks for evaluating an LLM's real-world knowledge.
Overall, the paper provides a comprehensive look at an important problem facing the development of reliable and trustworthy LLMs, and highlights ongoing research efforts to address these knowledge conflict challenges.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by introducing the concept of knowledge conflicts in large language models (LLMs), which can arise due to the models' training on large and diverse datasets. The authors identify three main types of knowledge conflicts:
- Context-Memory Conflict: This occurs when an LLM has learned different or contradictory information in different contexts, leading to inconsistent outputs depending on the specific input provided.
- Cross-Lingual Knowledge Barriers: LLMs trained on data from multiple languages may struggle to transfer knowledge effectively across languages, resulting in performance degradation when used in a cross-lingual setting.
- Contradictory Factual Knowledge: LLMs can sometimes learn conflicting "facts" about the world, leading to outputs that provide contradictory information.
The paper then reviews research efforts aimed at addressing these knowledge conflict challenges. For example, techniques for efficient knowledge infusion have been proposed to better align an LLM's knowledge with external knowledge bases. Methods for untangling conflicting reasoning skills aim to disentangle different types of reasoning abilities within the model. Additionally, the development of benchmarks for evaluating real-world knowledge can help identify and address knowledge conflicts in LLMs.
The paper provides a comprehensive survey of the current state of research in this area, offering insights into the various challenges and potential solutions for addressing knowledge conflicts in large language models.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and well-structured overview of the knowledge conflict problem in large language models, highlighting the importance of this issue for the development of reliable and trustworthy AI systems. The authors' classification of the different types of knowledge conflicts (context-memory, cross-lingual, and contradictory factual knowledge) is a useful framework for understanding the nuances of this challenge.
One potential limitation of the paper is that it primarily focuses on reviewing the existing research in this area, without providing much original analysis or new insights. While the survey is comprehensive, the paper could have benefited from a more in-depth critical examination of the current approaches and their limitations.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential societal implications of knowledge conflicts in LLMs, such as the risk of biased or unreliable outputs being used to inform high-stakes decision-making. Considering the broader ethical and societal implications of this issue could have strengthened the paper's overall contribution.
Nevertheless, the paper serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners working on improving the reliability and robustness of large language models, highlighting the key challenges and pointing to promising areas of ongoing research.
Conclusion
This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the knowledge conflict problem in large language models, a significant challenge facing the development of reliable and trustworthy AI systems. The authors identify three main types of knowledge conflicts - context-memory conflicts, cross-lingual knowledge barriers, and contradictory factual knowledge - and review the current research efforts aimed at addressing these issues.
The paper's thorough examination of the problem and the various proposed solutions, such as efficient knowledge infusion, untangling conflicting reasoning skills, and real-world knowledge evaluation, make it a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of large language models and AI safety. By addressing the challenges of knowledge conflicts, the development of more reliable and trustworthy LLMs can be advanced, with far-reaching implications for a wide range of applications.
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
š¬
Blinded by Generated Contexts: How Language Models Merge Generated and Retrieved Contexts When Knowledge Conflicts?
Hexiang Tan, Fei Sun, Wanli Yang, Yuanzhuo Wang, Qi Cao, Xueqi Cheng
0
0
While auxiliary information has become a key to enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs), relatively little is known about how LLMs merge these contexts, specifically contexts generated by LLMs and those retrieved from external sources. To investigate this, we formulate a systematic framework to identify whether LLMs' responses are attributed to either generated or retrieved contexts. To easily trace the origin of the response, we construct datasets with conflicting contexts, i.e., each question is paired with both generated and retrieved contexts, yet only one of them contains the correct answer. Our experiments reveal a significant bias in several LLMs (GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2) to favor generated contexts, even when they provide incorrect information. We further identify two key factors contributing to this bias: i) contexts generated by LLMs typically show greater similarity to the questions, increasing their likelihood of being selected; ii) the segmentation process used in retrieved contexts disrupts their completeness, thereby hindering their full utilization in LLMs. Our analysis enhances the understanding of how LLMs merge diverse contexts, offers valuable insights for advancing current LLM augmentation methods, and highlights the risk of generated misinformation for retrieval-augmented LLMs.
6/6/2024
Untangle the KNOT: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills in Large Language Models
Yantao Liu, Zijun Yao, Xin Lv, Yuchen Fan, Shulin Cao, Jifan Yu, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li
0
0
Providing knowledge documents for large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a promising solution to update the static knowledge inherent in their parameters. However, knowledge in the document may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge in the LLMs' parameters. This leads to the necessity of examining the capability of LLMs to assimilate supplemental external knowledge that conflicts with their memory. While previous studies have explained to what extent LLMs extract conflicting knowledge from the provided text, they neglect the necessity to reason with conflicting knowledge. Furthermore, there lack a detailed analysis on strategies to enable LLMs to resolve conflicting knowledge via prompting, decoding strategy, and supervised fine-tuning. To address these limitations, we construct a new dataset, dubbed KNOT, for knowledge conflict resolution examination in the form of question answering. KNOT facilitates in-depth analysis by dividing reasoning with conflicting knowledge into three levels: (1) Direct Extraction, which directly extracts conflicting knowledge to answer questions. (2) Explicit Reasoning, which reasons with conflicting knowledge when the reasoning path is explicitly provided in the question. (3) Implicit Reasoning, where reasoning with conflicting knowledge requires LLMs to infer the reasoning path independently to answer questions. We also conduct extensive experiments on KNOT to establish empirical guidelines for LLMs to utilize conflicting knowledge in complex circumstances. Dataset and associated codes can be accessed at https://github.com/THU-KEG/KNOT .
4/5/2024
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
0
0
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.
6/21/2024
Don't Hallucinate, Abstain: Identifying LLM Knowledge Gaps via Multi-LLM Collaboration
Shangbin Feng, Weijia Shi, Yike Wang, Wenxuan Ding, Vidhisha Balachandran, Yulia Tsvetkov
0
0
Despite efforts to expand the knowledge of large language models (LLMs), knowledge gaps -- missing or outdated information in LLMs -- might always persist given the evolving nature of knowledge. In this work, we study approaches to identify LLM knowledge gaps and abstain from answering questions when knowledge gaps are present. We first adapt existing approaches to model calibration or adaptation through fine-tuning/prompting and analyze their ability to abstain from generating low-confidence outputs. Motivated by their failures in self-reflection and over-reliance on held-out sets, we propose two novel approaches that are based on model collaboration, i.e., LLMs probing other LLMs for knowledge gaps, either cooperatively or competitively. Extensive experiments with three LLMs on four QA tasks featuring diverse knowledge domains demonstrate that both cooperative and competitive approaches to unveiling LLM knowledge gaps achieve up to 19.3% improvements on abstain accuracy against the strongest baseline. Further analysis reveals that our proposed mechanisms could help identify failure cases in retrieval augmentation and pinpoint knowledge gaps in multi-hop reasoning.
7/2/2024