Abstract
The literature on how large language models handle conflict between their training knowledge and a contradicting document presents a persistent empirical contradiction: some studies find models stubbornly retain their trained answers, ignoring provided documents nearly half the time, while others find models readily defer to the document, following context approximately 96% of the time. We argue these contradictions dissolve once one recognises that prior experiments have studied three qualitatively distinct processing situations without distinguishing them. We propose a three-regime framework: Regime 1 (single-source updating, dominant predictor: evidence coherence), Regime 2 (competitive integration, dominant predictor: parametric certainty), and Regime 3 (task-appropriate selection, dominant predictor: task knowledge requirement). We formalise a distinction between parametric strength (exposure frequency) and parametric uniqueness (encoding consistency), showing empirically that these are orthogonal dimensions (r = -0.002, p = .97) with strength as the operative predictor in stable factual domains. We validate the framework across Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Llama 4 Maverick, and DeepSeek V3 using 9,970 API calls in three experimental phases. GEE logistic regression confirms the predicted Regime 2 certainty gradient for all five models (beta = -0.38 to -0.50, all p <= .013, BH-FDR corrected). A Regime 3 ablation shows task framing alone flips context-following from near-100% (contextual knowledge condition) to 6-71% (parametric knowledge condition), with all five models significant (p < .001). The certainty gradient is robust to multinomial outcome modeling, sensitivity analyses for hedging responses, and FDR correction.
Explore similar work
Jun 9, 2026cs.AI
When large language models generate from retrieved or augmented contexts, conflicts between external context and parametric priors remain a central reliability bottleneck. Existing contrastive decoding methods follow a \emph{context-aware} paradigm that unilaterally amplifies context over parametric priors, overwriting correct priors when the context is erroneous. We generalize this to the \textbf{conflict-aware} paradigm that dynamically allocates authority between prior and context based on conflict signals, rather than presupposing context trustworthiness. We show that the affine combination of prior and context logits yields a \textbf{power family} with an inherent \textbf{regime asymmetry}: extrapolation amplifies errors unboundedly when the prior is correct, interpolation under-corrects when the context is correct, and no static regime covers both. Existing contrastive decoding methods are instances of this family, mostly extrapolative. To evaluate both conflict directions, we propose TriState-Bench, a model-aware evaluation protocol that calibrates per-model prior knowledge to measure three conflict states: correction, resistance, and agreement. To resolve the asymmetry, we propose Adaptive Regime Routing (ARR), which routes between regimes at each step, lifting resistance EM from below 6 to 16--33 without sacrificing correction or agreement. Our code is available at https://github.com/keith-Jiang/conflict-aware-decoding.
Runze Jiang, Taiqiang Wu, Yan Wang +2
Sep 2, 2026cs.CL
Most prior works focused on conflicts between an LLM's internal parametric knowledge and externally provided context. In contrast, we investigate how LLMs handle conflicts that arise within contextual knowledge itself. We introduce a taxonomy of six types of contextual conflicts (factual, inferential, temporal, granularity, perspective, and ambiguity) and contribute a comprehensive dataset ContextConflict for this setting. The dataset contains 5,781 samples, covers both reasoning and summarization tasks, and includes both explicit contradictions and implicit conflicts that require multi-step reasoning. Experiments on nine LLMs show that current models still fall short in resolving contextual knowledge conflicts. We further provide mechanistic interpretability insights into how LLMs process such conflicts, revealing their latent awareness of conflicts and the representational geometry underlying conflict processing. In addition, our analysis uncovers a consistent model bias towards earlier evidence, and this positional preference serves as a key obstacle to effective conflict resolution. Motivated by these findings, we further propose a simple training-free, label-free steering method that steers activations to encourage a more comprehensive incorporation of evidences for better conflict resolution. On our dataset, the method consistently improves accuracy on reasoning tasks and generates higher-quality, more balanced summaries for summarization tasks.
Xinye Yang, Zhenyang Liu, Ruisi Li +1
Sep 21, 2026cs.CL
We reproduce and stress-test the work of Yu et al. (2023), who characterize how language models (LMs) arbitrate between memorized knowledge and contradictory in-context statements. We replicate their world-capitals experiments on 31 models spanning Pythia, GPT-2, Qwen3, and Ministral families, including base and post-trained variants, and extend evaluations to five additional knowledge relation types from the ParaConflict dataset. We empirically confirm most of their original findings: larger models and higher-frequency entities tend to favor memorized answers, with substantial family-level variance. However, several conclusions do not generalize cleanly: entity-frequency effects disappear on Qwen3-14B and 32B; post-training shifts the memory-context trade-off inconsistently across families; question phrasing alone can change a model's reliance on memorized knowledge by up to 80 percentage points; and semantically unrelated prose can mimic coherent supporting context. Our results clarify where Yu et al.'s claims hold and to what extent they generalize to other prompts.
Guilhem Fouilhé, Nicholas Asher, Philippe Muller