Conflict and Congruency Effects in Large Language Models: In-Weight and In-Context Competition in a Verbal Conflict Task
Authors: Xiaoyang Hu, Mike Angstadt, Shane Storks, Zan Huang, Aman Taxali, Alex Weigard, Richard L. Lewis, Chandra Sripada
Abstract
Congruency effects, observed in conflict tasks such as Stroop and flanker tasks, have been investigated for nearly a century in psychology and neuroscience, but their mechanistic basis is not fully understood. We introduce a verbal-only LLM conflict task in which a prompt stem elicits a default same-color completion and an explicit rule either agrees with (congruent condition) or conflicts with (incongruent condition) the completion. Gemma-2-2B and six Pythia models ranging from 410M to 12B parameters showed strong default same-color tendencies, and six of seven models showed strong congruency effects. Using causal attribution analysis, attention analysis, and attention ablations, we identified distinct processing pathways in these LLMs: a pathway involving short-range attention to a superficial color cue that is preferentially activated in the congruent condition, and a pathway involving long-range attention to the rule prefix that is preferentially activated in the incongruent condition. Fine-tuning that strengthened the default same-color tendency had divergent effects on task conditions, reducing incongruent performance while increasing congruent performance. In contrast, increasing rule set size selectively impaired incongruent performance. These converging findings support an account in which congruency effects in this task arise from competition between an in-weight default mapping and an in-context rule-based mapping. More broadly, our findings illustrate how LLMs can serve as model systems for mechanistic analysis of competition between default and rule-governed response tendencies within a single learned network.
Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts, although current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation, limiting the insights about how models process conflicting instructions. We introduce a framework \textit{PRIME}(\textit{Prompt Resolution under Incompatible Meta-Instructions Evaluation}) to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions. \textit{PRIME} purposefully produces calibrated conflicts across response length, output format, and reasoning; classifying model responses with a deterministic behavioral taxonomy. We are evaluating five instruction tuned open weight LLMs in two distinct settings, balanced and naturally distributed. The conclusion we reach upon analysis is that conflict type is more significant in affecting behavior than model scale, and various failure modes across different categories of conflict. Our findings emphasize the value of developing conflict awareness and suggest ability of LLM to follow instructions cannot be assessed through isolated constraints alone.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data, which are further elicited via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) practices. However, whether fundamental reasoning patterns, such as induction, deduction, and abduction, can be decoupled from specific problem instances remains a critical challenge for model controllability, and for shedding light on reasoning controllability. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of this problem through the lens of reasoning conflicts: an explicit tension between parametric and contextual information induced by mandating logical schemata that deviate from those expected for a target task. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs consistently prioritize sensibility over compliance, favoring task-appropriate reasoning patterns despite conflicting instructions. We further demonstrate that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores significantly drop during conflicting episodes. Probing experiments confirm that reasoning types are linearly encoded from middle-to-late layers, indicating the potential for activation-level controllability. Leveraging these insights, we steer models towards compliance, increasing instruction following by up to 29%. Overall, our findings establish that while LLM reasoning is anchored to concrete instances, active mechanistic interventions can effectively decouple logical schemata from data, offering a path toward improved controllability, faithfulness, and generalizability.
Xingwei Tan, Marco Valentino, Mahmud Elahi Akhter +3
In language models, the choice between believing the prompt and believing the weights is made by a handful of identifiable attention heads. Instruction tuning changes how models behave under conflict, but whether it rewires the underlying circuit or merely gates/reweights already present components, remains unknown. We provide the first mechanistic base-vs-instruct comparison of conflict-resolution circuits, across three families (Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen-2.5-3B, Gemma-3-4B). Five independent methods, node and edge attribution, superposition role analysis, causal ablation, and path patching, converge on gating, with the same heads, in the same late-layers, are found to be reweighted rather than replaced with a high node overlap (0.60-0.82). Behaviorally, tuning shifts models toward parametric memory, making instruct models reject a terse counterfactual context far more than base ones, the opposite of a naive user-following expectation. Yet this added skepticism is a factor of framing since it disappears when the same false claim is delivered as a coherent, evidential passage. The robustness that instruction tuning buys against terse injection is therefore real but narrow. More broadly, we believe that because the conflict circuit is preserved rather than rebuilt, interpretability and control tools calibrated on base models should transfer directly to their deployed instruct siblings.