Untangle the KNOT: Interweaving Conflicting Knowledge and Reasoning Skills in Large Language Models
2404.03577
0
0
Abstract
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 However, knowledge in the document may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge in the LLMs' parameters.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 .
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the challenge of interweaving conflicting knowledge and reasoning skills within large language models (LLMs).
- The authors investigate how LLMs can maintain coherent and consistent behavior when faced with contradictory information or reasoning requirements.
- The research aims to develop strategies for untangling these knots of conflicting knowledge and skills in LLMs.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. However, these models can sometimes exhibit contradictory or inconsistent behavior when faced with conflicting information or reasoning tasks.
Imagine a person who is an expert in multiple fields, like science and history. When asked a question that requires knowledge from both domains, they might struggle to provide a coherent and consistent response. This is similar to the challenge faced by LLMs.
The researchers in this paper are working to develop techniques that can help LLMs navigate these tricky situations. They want to find ways for the models to recognize and resolve conflicts in their knowledge and reasoning, much like a person might do. This could lead to LLMs that are more reliable, trustworthy, and able to handle the complexities of the real world.
The key idea is to give LLMs the ability to [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/njust-kmg-at-trac-2024-tasks-1]recognize and reason about their own knowledge and reasoning processes[/link]. This could involve techniques like [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/hgt-leveraging-heterogeneous-graph-enhanced-large-language]graph-enhanced knowledge representation[/link] or [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/new-semantic-task-french-spoken-language-understanding]semantic understanding[/link]. By equipping LLMs with these capabilities, the researchers hope to create models that can "untangle the knot" of conflicting information and deliver more reliable and coherent outputs.
Technical Explanation
The key focus of this paper is on developing strategies for LLMs to handle conflicting knowledge and reasoning skills. The authors propose a framework that consists of several components:
-
Knowledge Representation: The researchers explore how LLMs can represent their knowledge in a structured way, such as using [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/hgt-leveraging-heterogeneous-graph-enhanced-large-language]heterogeneous knowledge graphs[/link]. This allows the model to reason about its own knowledge and identify potential conflicts.
-
Conflict Detection: The framework includes mechanisms for LLMs to detect when they are faced with contradictory information or reasoning requirements. This could involve analyzing the model's internal representations and decision-making processes.
-
Conflict Resolution: The authors investigate techniques for LLMs to resolve conflicts, such as by [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/gemini-family-highly-capable-multimodal-models]drawing on multiple modalities of information[/link] or dynamically adjusting their reasoning strategies.
-
Reasoning Adaptation: The framework enables LLMs to adapt their reasoning skills based on the specific task and context, allowing them to navigate complex situations involving conflicting knowledge or requirements.
The paper presents experimental results demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach on various benchmark tasks. The authors also discuss the limitations of their work and identify areas for future research, such as [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/hallucination-benchmark-medical-visual-question-answering]handling hallucination and other challenges in large language models[/link].
Critical Analysis
The researchers in this paper have identified an important challenge facing large language models: the need to handle contradictory information and reasoning requirements. Their proposed framework represents a promising step towards developing LLMs that can more effectively navigate these complex situations.
One potential limitation of the approach is the reliance on structured knowledge representation, which may not always align with the more fluid and contextual nature of human knowledge and reasoning. Additionally, the conflict detection and resolution mechanisms described in the paper may not be robust enough to handle the vast and dynamic knowledge landscapes that LLMs encounter in the real world.
Further research is needed to explore more flexible and adaptive strategies for LLMs to handle conflicting information and reasoning skills. This could involve [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/njust-kmg-at-trac-2024-tasks-1]meta-learning approaches[/link] or [link to https://aimodels.fyi/papers/new-semantic-task-french-spoken-language-understanding]deeper integration of semantic understanding[/link]. Additionally, the researchers could consider the ethical implications of LLMs that can effectively navigate contradictory information, as this could have significant societal impacts.
Conclusion
This paper presents an important step towards creating large language models that can effectively handle conflicting knowledge and reasoning skills. By developing strategies for LLMs to represent their knowledge, detect conflicts, and adapt their reasoning, the researchers are working to "untangle the knot" of contradictory information that these models often encounter.
While the proposed framework shows promise, further research is needed to explore more flexible and adaptive approaches to this challenge. As LLMs become increasingly ubiquitous and influential, the ability to maintain coherent and consistent behavior in the face of conflicting information will be 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
Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey
Rongwu Xu, Zehan Qi, Zhijiang Guo, Cunxiang Wang, Hongru Wang, Yue Zhang, Wei Xu
0
0
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.
6/26/2024
🌀
An Enhanced Prompt-Based LLM Reasoning Scheme via Knowledge Graph-Integrated Collaboration
Yihao Li, Ru Zhang, Jianyi Liu
0
0
While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional performance in a multitude of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, they encounter challenges in practical applications, including issues with hallucinations, inadequate knowledge updating, and limited transparency in the reasoning process. To overcome these limitations, this study innovatively proposes a collaborative training-free reasoning scheme involving tight cooperation between Knowledge Graph (KG) and LLMs. This scheme first involves using LLMs to iteratively explore KG, selectively retrieving a task-relevant knowledge subgraph to support reasoning. The LLMs are then guided to further combine inherent implicit knowledge to reason on the subgraph while explicitly elucidating the reasoning process. Through such a cooperative approach, our scheme achieves more reliable knowledge-based reasoning and facilitates the tracing of the reasoning results. Experimental results show that our scheme significantly progressed across multiple datasets, notably achieving over a 10% improvement on the QALD10 dataset compared to the best baseline and the fine-tuned state-of-the-art (SOTA) work. Building on this success, this study hopes to offer a valuable reference for future research in the fusion of KG and LLMs, thereby enhancing LLMs' proficiency in solving complex issues.
6/13/2024
Counter-intuitive: Large Language Models Can Better Understand Knowledge Graphs Than We Thought
Xinbang Dai, Yuncheng Hua, Tongtong Wu, Yang Sheng, Qiu Ji, Guilin Qi
0
0
As the parameter scale of large language models (LLMs) grows, jointly training knowledge graph (KG) embeddings with model parameters to enhance LLM capabilities becomes increasingly costly. Consequently, the community has shown interest in developing prompt strategies that effectively integrate KG information into LLMs. However, the format for incorporating KGs into LLMs lacks standardization; for instance, KGs can be transformed into linearized triples or natural language (NL) text. Current prompting methods often rely on a trial-and-error approach, leaving researchers with an incomplete understanding of which KG input format best facilitates LLM comprehension of KG content. To elucidate this, we design a series of experiments to explore LLMs' understanding of different KG input formats within the context of prompt engineering. Our analysis examines both literal and attention distribution levels. Through extensive experiments, we indicate a counter-intuitive phenomenon: when addressing fact-related questions, unordered linearized triples are more effective for LLMs' understanding of KGs compared to fluent NL text. Furthermore, noisy, incomplete, or marginally relevant subgraphs can still enhance LLM performance. Finally, different LLMs have distinct preferences for different formats of organizing unordered triples.
6/18/2024
💬
New!Investigating How Large Language Models Leverage Internal Knowledge to Perform Complex Reasoning
Miyoung Ko, Sue Hyun Park, Joonsuk Park, Minjoon Seo
0
0
Despite significant advancements, there is a limited understanding of how large language models (LLMs) utilize knowledge for reasoning. To address this, we propose a method that deconstructs complex real-world questions into a graph, representing each question as a node with parent nodes of background knowledge needed to solve the question. We develop the DepthQA dataset, deconstructing questions into three depths: (i) recalling conceptual knowledge, (ii) applying procedural knowledge, and (iii) analyzing strategic knowledge. Based on a hierarchical graph, we quantify forward discrepancy, discrepancies in LLMs' performance on simpler sub-problems versus complex questions. We also measure backward discrepancy, where LLMs answer complex questions but struggle with simpler ones. Our analysis shows that smaller models have more discrepancies than larger models. Additionally, guiding models from simpler to complex questions through multi-turn interactions improves performance across model sizes, highlighting the importance of structured intermediate steps in knowledge reasoning. This work enhances our understanding of LLM reasoning and suggests ways to improve their problem-solving abilities.
7/1/2024