Knowledge Conflicts

Dispute mediation is essential for maintaining social harmony and resilience, yet developing skilled mediators is costly and time-consuming. Existing LLM-based mediation research remains limited by unrealistic task formulations, low-fidelity datasets, and coarse evaluation metrics that obscure turn-by-turn dynamics. To address these gaps, we introduce ProMediConv, a novel benchmarking framework that models mediation as a proactive, multi-stage, and party-aware dialogue process incorporating 11 mediation strategies and four party behavior pattern (BP) states. Using 972 complete real-world cases, we construct a high-fidelity mediation dataset with utterance-level annotations of strategies and BP states. Furthermore, to better assess agent impact, we propose MAD (Mean Attribute Difference), a fine-grained metric that captures BP shifts throughout the dialogue. Leveraging this framework, we establish a comprehensive benchmark by evaluating diverse models alongside our tailored baseline ProMediAgent. Extensive empirical analyses reveal critical behavioral phenomena and underscore the persistent challenges current models face in dynamic, multi-party mediation. Ultimately, ProMediConv provides a rigorous foundation and a vital quantitative standard for advancing AI-assisted conflict resolution. Our dataset and codebase are accessible at https://github.com/ZsWei66/ProMediConv_repo.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed with hierarchical instructions, yet they remain vulnerable to conflicts in which user directives override system-level constraints. Existing defense mechanisms predominantly focus on static input inspection and therefore fail to detect Response Drift, a phenomenon in which the model's final response violates system-level constraints despite seemingly compliant inputs. To bridge this gap, we introduce ELCD, a response-level latent conflict detector for post-generation, pre-delivery verification. Given the full generated output, ELCD constructs a composite hidden-state representation by concatenating the final-token embedding with the mean-pooled response embedding. It then optimizes a pairwise margin ranking objective to separate compliant and drifting responses in latent space. Extensive experiments across five mainstream LLMs ranging from 1.5B to 14B parameters demonstrate that ELCD significantly outperforms competitive baselines. Notably, it improves the PR-AUC on Llama-2-7B by approximately 30 percentage points and reduces the False Positive Rate at 95% TPR (FPR95) on Mistral-7B to 2.67%. These results suggest that ELCD provides a promising approach for latent instruction-conflict detection in open-weight or self-hosted LLM deployments.

Sparse autoencoder (SAE)-based steering has been widely used to address knowledge conflicts by guiding LLMs to be more faithful to the contextual knowledge. Existing methods usually perform mass steering, which modifies a large batch of SAE features identified via correlation-based methods. However, due to the inaccurate correlation and the neglected feature interactions, mass steering methods fail to precisely identify the features that play the key roles in steering and introduce a large number of redundant ones, which add noise and weaken the steering effects. Our empirical studies reveal that steering only a small subset of the identified features can achieve comparable or even better performance. Motivated by this finding, we propose Key Path Identification (KPI), a novel method that identifies key steering features characterized by strong causal dependencies with both upstream and downstream features. From these features, KPI constructs key paths and steers through less feature modifications. In this way, KPI advances SAE-based steering from quantity-driven to quality-focused, offering a perspective for more precise and interpretable model editing. Experiments in RAG tasks with knowledge conflicts show that our method improves the accuracy by 18% on average compared to the best baseline of mass steering, effectively filtering redundant features, alleviating side effects and demonstrating the core role of key paths in steering.

As LLMs increasingly act through tools, they must reconcile user instructions, parametric knowledge, and dynamic environmental observations before taking actions. We introduce KC-Bench, a controlled multi-turn benchmark for measuring this capability across world-knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi-source temporal conflicts. Its 238 tasks are manually screened from more than 1,000 generated candidates and combine a user simulator, stateful tools, deterministic environment assertions, an open-source natural-language evaluator, and human trajectory verification. Evaluation of nine models, including DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, and MiniMax-M3, shows substantial cross-domain variation: no model handles factual correction, identity consistency checking, and temporal conflict resolution reliably across all settings. In the simulated environments, missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected-data flows. KC-Bench isolates this model-level behavior rather than ranking complete agent frameworks, and provides a reproducible diagnostic for developing conflict-aware reasoning and execution safeguards.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly provided with contextual evidence in heterogeneous forms: as a text passage, as a rendered image of the same passage, or as both together. However, it remains unclear how consistently these surface forms are processed, especially when the evidence conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. We study modality robustness under knowledge conflict across 13 MLLMs and two datasets, and find them far from robust. (1) Contrary to common belief, models favor a context that contradicts parametric knowledge more readily in image form than in text form; (2) when a contradicting text and image are presented together, the preferred modality is essentially arbitrary, varying with input order, model, and dataset. We further demonstrate that this instability has practical consequences: it degrades performance in multimodal RAG and can be exploited by adversarial attacks. To alleviate this brittleness, we examine several simple techniques---prompting, steering, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and direct preference optimization; the majority prove ineffective, whereas SFT achieves moderate success. We therefore call for greater awareness of this inconsistency and argue that it is fundamental, demanding attention at multiple training stages.

In Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), post-retrieval conflict resolution arbitrates among noisy or contradictory retrieved passages. However, the robustness of this safeguard against knowledge poisoning has not been adequately studied. Existing black-box poisoning methods all assert the target answer in frontal contradiction with what the resolver treats as settled, the very signal these methods are built to detect. We propose PURPOSE, a strict black-box poisoning attack that reframes the injection as an update that minimizes conflict, rather than as a counter-claim. PURPOSE extracts query-related facts approximating the resolver's possible reference, then grounds a pivot event in them to keep the injection consistent with what the resolver might verify while steering the generator toward the target answer. Across three QA benchmarks, five generators, and three conflict-resolution methods, PURPOSE attains the highest attack success rate (ASR) in 35 of 45 settings and exceeds the strongest prior attack with +9.7 mean ASR points. These results show that our poisoning method is effective against conflict resolution in RAG and identify non-contradicting injection as a practical mode to enhance poisoning attack.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to navigate value conflicts when trained with the compressed scalar rewards of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). To address this challenge, we investigate how chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can help improve performance in this domain. Geometrically, we show that CoT correlates with further smoothing the model's loss landscape in its sharpest direction, helping resolve the optimization instability of traditional scalar rewards. We also demonstrate via relevant downstream benchmarks that value conflict-focused CoT may generalize to different kinds of moral reasoning, demonstrating that this CoT has the potential to be an effective mechanism for better moral reasoning. To capitalize on this potential, we create a new value conflict-focused CoT design that further smooths the sharpest direction of the loss landscape and increases moral reasoning performance. This finding shows that explicitly modifying and improving the design of reasoning dynamics offers a promising avenue for improving model performance on user requests with complex value conflicts, advancing pluralistic alignment in LLMs.

Retrieval-augmented generation grounds large language models in external evidence, but most pipelines still treat retrieved passages as deterministic and mutually consistent context. In open information environments, retrieved sources may disagree because of temporal drift, source error, ambiguity, or genuine uncertainty. This paper introduces ERAG, an uncertainty-aware RAG framework that converts retrieved chunks into probabilistic evidence before generation. A lightweight evaluator extracts candidate claims and maps chunk-level support to Dirichlet evidence. A conflict-preserving Dempster-Shafer fusion rule then transfers unresolved disagreement into epistemic uncertainty rather than normalizing it away. The generator is routed to direct answering, conflict-aware answering, or abstention according to the fused uncertainty score. Experiments on CRAG, ConflictQA, and MuSiQue show that ERAG remains competitive with the strongest matched baseline on standard question answering while improving behavior under conflict. On the CRAG ambiguous subset, hallucination decreases from 45.3% for Corrective RAG to a human-calibrated estimate of 34.8%, conflict resolution increases from 35.2% to 51.2%, and expected calibration error improves to 0.122. These results suggest that evidential modeling is a practical mechanism for trustworthy information processing in foundation-model-based retrieval systems.

We release a benchmark and failure-mode-aware evaluation framework for grounded QA under coordinated retrieval poisoning. The framework partitions reader outputs into four mutually exclusive categories (\emph{gold}, \emph{hijack}, \emph{abstention}, \emph{drift}), with instance-level paired clean-to-poison transition matrices and a Forced Exposure protocol isolating reader-side conflict resolution from retrieval variance. We introduce \emph{polymorphic sybil poisoning}, a coordinated attack class in which $S$ lexically diverse passages jointly support an attacker-chosen target while evading lexical near-duplicate filters that fully detect monomorphic baselines (capturing the residual 14.2% with E5 cosine raises false-positive rate 9$\times$ on legitimate same-topic pairs). A monomorphic-polymorphic ablation under Forced Exposure isolates the diversity dimension and reveals a $+$18.8pp hijack amplification (95% paired bootstrap CI $[+15.4, +22.4]$, $B{=}5{,}000$): monomorphic copies register only 4.0% as hijack while polymorphic surface diversity recovers 22.8% -- a 5.7$\times$ amplification of the ASR-visible attack channel. ASR alone treats every non-target output identically; under attack, abstention and drift together hold 47-66% of output mass, unmonitored by ASR+ACC, and two readers at nearly identical ASR (within 0.2pp) differ by 16.5pp on abstention and 17.2pp on drift -- failure profiles invisible to ASR. We release the frozen benchmark (3{,}145 questions, 2{,}982 retained sybil groups; $S{=}6$ chosen to dominate top-10 retrieval slots, §\ref{sec:setup}), the official four-way evaluator, paired-transition utilities, and the Forced Exposure harness across five readers (7B-120B), two retrievers, and two cross-validation datasets (TriviaQA, 2Wiki), under CCBY-SA4.0 (data) and MIT (software); release information in §\ref{sec:release}.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves language models by grounding generation in external context. However, it can be fragile when the retrieved context conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. Such conflicts span a reliability spectrum, ranging from reliable and partially reliable evidence to adversarial context. Existing remedies often handle such heterogeneous conflicts with regime-agnostic supervision, which can conflate incompatible learning signals across reliability regimes. To disentangle these signals, we propose RAPS-DA, a regime-aware peer specialization framework that addresses conflict at two complementary granularities. At the sample level, conflicts are divided into three regimes, including Grounding, Arbitration, and Resistance, with one same-scale peer specialist trained per regime from a shared base model. Each sample is then hard-routed to its regime-matched peer for on-policy reverse-KL supervision. At the token level, a dual-layer selector uses inter-teacher disagreement, student-teacher divergence, and student entropy to filter uninformative or unstable tokens, upweight confidently misaligned ones, and gradually focus supervision on high-conflict tokens as the student matures. Gains stem from specialization at a fixed model scale, not from a stronger teacher, and the peer specialists exist only during training, so the deployed student requires no regime labels or peer access. Experiments on five conflict scenarios and two out-of-distribution benchmarks show RAPS-DA surpasses all prompting, decoding, fine-tuning, RL, and single-teacher baselines.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances LLMs by incorporating external knowledge to support response generation. However, conflicts between retrieved context and parametric knowledge have emerged as a critical challenge in RAG systems. To mitigate such conflicts, numerous studies have attempted to identify and edit knowledge-related internal neurons, aiming to improve the ability of LLMs to rely on contextual evidence during generation. However, these neuron-level approaches may introduce unintended cascading effects that compromise the general capabilities of LLMs, as the modified neurons are often entangled with broader model behaviors and functionalities. In this paper, we introduce SHIFT, a novel framework that reformulates neuron-level modification as learnable gate modulation, allowing LLMs to adaptively regulate internal activations for knowledge conflict resolution. Technically, our SHIFT equips LLMs with a lightweight gate module and optimizes fewer than 0.01% trainable parameters while keeping the backbone model frozen. During generation, the gate module adjusts the model's internal representations to adaptively leverage contextual and parametric knowledge. Extensive experiments on six datasets validate the effectiveness of our SHIFT in comparison with various competing baselines. All datasets and code are available at https://github.com/OpenBMB/SHIFT.

Smart home automation increasingly relies on user-defined rules across heterogeneous IoT devices. While these rules appear harmless in isolation, their concurrent execution creates hidden, cross-rule interactions via shared devices, environmental variables, and physical topology. These interactions result in unsafe, wasteful, or privacy-threatening behaviors that are completely invisible to text-only analysis. Existing conflict detectors remain siloed, catching either static syntactic conflicts or specific environment-mediated interactions without unifying the two or providing actionable repairs for non-expert users. This paper presents SHACR, a smart home conflict resolution framework that anchors Large Language Model (LLM) unpredictability by grounding its reasoning in a formal, directed knowledge graph. SHACR encodes devices, capabilities, physical states, and Trigger-Condition-Action rules as typed, traversable entities. By elevating physical cause-effect relationships to first-class graph edges, SHACR transforms conflict detection from fragile text inference into deterministic multi-hop graph traversal, unifying logical, semantic, and physical conflict classes. It drives a closed-loop Scan-Explain-Repair-Validate workflow that uses the graph to bound the LLM's action space. We evaluated SHACR on a testbed of 203 rules deployed across 70 apartments within a smart building. By holding the underlying LLM fixed and introducing SHACR's knowledge graph, classification errors drop by 36.7%, F1 rises from 0.59 to 0.79, and few-shot calibration further lifts F1 to 0.95, whereas the same calibration barely helps a graph-free LLM. Ultimately, this work challenges the current AI paradigm, establishing that structured knowledge representation is a far more critical factor for dependable IoT automation management than prompt engineering or underlying model architecture.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across a wide range of language-based tasks by leveraging both extensive parametric knowledge and in-context learning ability, enabling them to incorporate external information provided in the input prompt. However, the integration of external knowledge can introduce conflicts, not only between the model's internal parametric knowledge and the external information, but also among multiple pieces of external contexts. Existing approaches typically assume that either the model or the provided context is reliable, overlooking the possibility that both sources may contain errors, and avoid conflicts by privileging one source over the other, rather than actively resolving inconsistencies. To address these limitations, we propose a novel framework MACR for LLM knowledge conflict resolution that moves beyond the conventional binary choice paradigm and incorporates an explicit conflict-resolution mechanism based on a multi-agent reasoning approach. Specifically, we first propose an adaptive knowledge assessment and retrieval approach that employs a modified semantic entropy measure to quantify an LLM's confidence in its answer to a given query. Based on this confidence estimation, MACR either externalizes the model's internal knowledge as textual representations or retrieves relevant external knowledge when internal knowledge is insufficient, generating basic contexts for subsequent reasoning. Then we introduce an inductive multi-agent reasoning framework with three specialized agents that, respectively, induce explicit rules, analyze potential conflicts, and resolve inconsistencies across all available contexts. Empirical results demonstrate that MACR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across benchmarks, while also providing interpretable resolutions of explicit conflicts.

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.

Hallucinations -- factually incorrect or unverifiable outputs -- remain one of the most challenging limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs), especially in knowledge-intensive tasks. One proposed explanation is internal knowledge conflicts arising from fixed, outdated training data. This paper investigates whether internal representations linked to knowledge conflicts correlate with hallucination behaviors in LLMs. Using probing techniques inspired by two prior works, we analyzed activations from hidden, attention, and MLP layers, as well as output logits, across predefined tasks. We probed LLaMA-3-8B on hallucination detection benchmarks and Falcon-7B on a knowledge conflict dataset. Our findings show that, although conceptually related, hallucination activation patterns cannot be fully reduced to or explained by knowledge conflict representations. Nonetheless, probing proves a robust tool across multiple languages and activation types, supporting its role in improving LLM interpretability. This work advances the broader understanding of hallucinations in LLMs and underscores the value of fine-grained analysis of their internal behavior.

LLM-based memory systems increasingly maintain facts that evolve over time, where a recurring failure is conflict resolution: when a fact has multiple contradictory values, which should the agent return? MemoryAgentBench (MAB; Hu et al., 2026) makes this explicit in its FactConsolidation task: facts are numbered, the counterfactual has the higher serial, and agents are told newer facts have larger serials. Yet every published system underperforms: HippoRAG-v2 reaches 54% on single-hop (FC-SH), BM25 48%, Mem0 18%, and the temporal KG Zep/Graphiti just 7%. Multi-hop is near-unsolved (at most 7% across 22 systems). We argue the bottleneck is the assembly step: baselines leave conflict resolution to LLM-mediated retrieval or generation rather than version-aware aggregation. A matched-setup comparison (same backbone, retrieval, chunking, TOP_K) shows that replacing the LLM-judgment answer pipeline with candidate-extraction plus Python max(serial) yields +10.8 points on FC-SH (gpt-4o-mini), widening from +8 at 6K to +21 at 262K. This is a whole-pipeline effect (resolver, prompt, format, and temperature vary jointly); isolating the resolver is future work. The recipe reaches 78.0% on FC-SH (gpt-4o-mini), 94.8% (gpt-4o), and 30.2% on FC-MH (gpt-4o-mini, rising to 51.5% with gpt-4o) via a per-hop deterministic extension of Self-Ask. At matched-262K, it beats HippoRAG-v2 by +28 points and the best published FC-MH result by +20. The implication is corrective for the subfield: the bottleneck on conflict resolution is assembly (post-retrieval aggregation), not storage. A LongMemEval knowledge-update check shows the mechanism ports from max(serial) to max(timestamp) but only ties LLM judgment (57.8% vs 64.4%, n=45): deterministic aggregation is the right primitive for current-value conflicts and must be composed with question-type-aware handling for broader memory QA.

When a language model sees a document contradicting its training knowledge, it must choose: follow the document or trust itself. Prior work proved this choice depends on how well-known the fact is. We ask: does the model's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully report this mechanism? We introduce introspective faithfulness and test it across 200 questions, 8 models, and 4 prompt conditions. We find CoT reasoning is highly stable across opposite decisions: flip pairs retain 96% of same-answer similarity (d=0.34; confirmed by ROUGE-L, d=0.45). Yet self-rated confidence carries a faint genuine signal: for obscure facts where entity fame is uninformative, confidence still predicts decisions (p<0.001) and tracks item-level knowledge (r=0.134). GPT-4o is the only model with statistically reliable reasoning-decision coupling. Claude Sonnet 4.6 shows the widest confidence range (SD=1.39) but near-zero pooled correlation because the confidence-decision relationship reverses between conditions; a temperature ablation confirms this is model-specific. Internal thinking tokens show greater decision-sensitivity than user-facing CoT (p=0.033). CoT decomposes into a decision-invariant knowledge display (~96%) and a thin confidence layer with weak but real signal. For monitoring: read confidence, not the argument.

Trusted multi-view classification aims to deliver reliable fusion for accurate predictions and has recently attracted substantial attention in both academia and industry. However, existing TMVC methods typically assume strict alignment across different views during both training and testing phases, which is often impractical in real-world scenarios. This limitation motivates us to revisit TMVC and extend it to a more challenging setting: how to mitigate the impact of view conflict (VC) during both training and inference. To tackle this setting, existing TMVC methods suffer from three critical limitations: underestimated uncertainty, misleading decisions, and overfitting to VC. To address these issues, this paper proposes a novel Robust Fuzzy Multi-View Learning (R-FUML) framework grounded in Fuzzy Set Theory. Specifically, R-FUML models network outputs as fuzzy memberships to quantify category credibility and uses an entropy-based method for reliable multi-view fusion. To this end, we present a Robust Multi-view Fusion (RMF) strategy that accounts for both view-specific uncertainty and inter-view conflicts, thereby alleviating the adverse impacts of VC on decision-making. To identify and conquer VC during training, we further design a Robust Learning Against VC (RLVC) framework. RLVC isolates conflicting samples by leveraging neural networks' memory effects and then retrains the model by applying a penalty to these conflicting views. Extensive experiments across eight public datasets demonstrate that R-FUML consistently outperforms 15 state-of-the-art baselines in robustness and uncertainty estimation. The code will be released upon acceptance.

Conflict Mitigation (ConMit) is a crucial part of intelligent network control in Open Radio Access Networks (O-RAN). In this paper, we propose a method named ACCoRD to resolve detected control conflicts in Near-Real Time RAN Intelligent Controller using a Conflict Resolution (CR) Agent with an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) trained with a reinforcement learning algorithm PPO-Clip. The implemented ANN analyzes data about the network and conflicting control decisions to infer optimal CR actions. The CR Agent gathers feedback from the network after each resolved conflict to assess its efficiency and adjust the ANN's weights during batch training. The evaluation of the proposed approach is based on simulation data. A new methodology for evaluating CR solutions is proposed. Results show that the proposed ANN-based method improves on the efficiency of rule-based approaches by significantly reducing negative network events caused by conflicting control decisions in medium and high traffic scenarios.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems implicitly assume mutual consistency among retrieved documents -- an assumption that frequently fails in practice. We present ConflictRAG, a conflict-aware RAG framework that detects, classifies, and resolves knowledge conflicts prior to answer generation. The framework introduces three contributions: (1) a two-stage conflict detection module combining a lightweight embedding-based MLP classifier with selective LLM refinement, reducing API costs by 62% while maintaining 90.8% detection accuracy; (2) an Entropy-TOPSIS framework for data-driven source credibility assessment, improving selection accuracy by 7.1% over manual heuristics; and (3) a Conflict-Aware RAG Score (CARS) for diagnostic evaluation of conflict-handling capabilities. Experiments on three benchmarks against six baselines demonstrate 88.7% conflict-detection F1 and consistent 5.3--6.1% correctness gains over the strongest conflict-aware baseline, with the pipeline transferring effectively across backbone LLMs.

Code merging is a significant challenge, particularly in large-scale projects. Existing solutions, including program analysis and machine learning, show promise but face critical limitations. Program analysis lacks the ability to infer developers' intentions, relying on conservative strategies that offload unresolved conflicts for manual handling. Meanwhile, model-based approaches struggle with conflicts involving complex code dependencies due to insufficient contextual awareness. To address these gaps, we introduce Rover, a novel conflict resolution system that integrates program analysis with large language models (LLMs). To obtain context-aware prompts, we propose Multi-layer Code Property Graph (MtCPG), a new representation capturing inter-file dependencies and enabling contextual analysis for a given conflict. Using graph connectivity algorithms, Rover further clusters conflicting code and associated changes into meaningful "contexts" that guide the LLM in generating accurate resolutions. We compared Rover with standalone LLMs, machine learning baseline MergeGen, and suggestion provider tool WizardMerge with adjacent code as the contexts. Evaluation results show that Rover surpasses all of these approaches in terms of conflict resolution, achieving higher similarity to ground-truth resolutions at character, lexical, and semantic levels.

The Context-Compliance Regime in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) occurs when retrieved context dominates the final answer even when it conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. Accuracy alone does not reveal how retrieved context causally shapes answers under such conflict. We introduce Context-Driven Decomposition (CDD), a belief-decomposition probe that operates at inference time and serves as an intervention mechanism for controlled retrieval conflict. Across Epi-Scale stress tests, TruthfulQA misconception injection, and cross-model reruns, CDD exposes three patterns. P1: context compliance is measurable in an upper-bound adversarial setting, where Standard RAG reaches 15.0% accuracy on TruthfulQA misconception injection (N=500). P2: adversarial accuracy gains transfer across model families -- CDD improves accuracy on Gemini-2.5-Flash and on Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus -- but rationale-answer causal coupling does not transfer. CDD reaches 64.1% mistake-injection causal sensitivity on Gemini-2.5-Flash, while sensitivities for all three Claude variants fall in the [-3%, +7%] range, suggesting that the Claude-side accuracy gains operate through a mechanism distinct from the explicit conflict-resolution trace. P3: explicit conflict decomposition improves robustness under temporal drift and noisy distractors, with CDD reaching 71.3% on temporal shifts and 69.9% on distractor evidence on the full Epi-Scale adversarial benchmark. These three patterns identify context-compliance as a structural axis along which standard RAG can be probed and intervened on, distinct from retrieval-quality or single-method robustness questions, and motivate releasing Epi-Scale for systematic study across model families and retrieval pipelines.

Multimodal emotion recognition (MER) benefits from combining text, audio, and vision, yet standard fusion often fails when modalities conflict. Crucially, conflicts differ in resolvability: benign conflicts stem from missing, weak, or ambiguous cues and can be mitigated by cross-modal calibration, while severe conflicts arise from intrinsically contradictory (e.g., sarcasm) or misleading signals, for which forced fusion may amplify errors. Recognizing this, we propose Dual-Path Conflict Resolution (DCR), a unified framework that learns when to fuse and when to drop modalities. Path I (Affective Fusion Distiller, AFD) performs reverse distillation from audio/visual teachers to a textual student using temporally weighted class evidence, thereby enhancing representation-level calibration and improving fusion when alignment is beneficial. Path II (Affective Discernment Agent, ADA) formulates MER as a contextual bandit that selects among fusion and unimodal predictions based on a dual-view state and a calibration-aware reward, enabling decision-level arbitration under irreconcilable conflicts without requiring per-modality reliability labels. By taking into account the full multimodal context and coupling soft calibration with hard arbitration, DCR reconciles conflicts that can be aligned while bypassing misleading modalities when fusion is harmful. Across five benchmarks covering both dialogue-level and clip-level MER, DCR consistently outperforms competitive baselines or achieves highly competitive results. Further ablations, conflict-specific subset evaluation, and modality-selection analysis verify that AFD and ADA are complementary and jointly improve robust conflict-aware emotion recognition.

Hypernetwork-based methods such as Doc-to-LoRA internalize a document into an LLM's weights in a single forward pass, but they fail systematically on conflicts: when the document contradicts pretraining knowledge, accuracy collapses to 46.4% on the deepest facts. We show the failure is a magnitude problem rather than a representational one. The hypernetwork already targets the right layers, but its adapter margin is approximately constant across documents while the pretrained margin grows with training frequency, so deep conflicts lose by construction. The account predicts that failure should track prior strength: sorting 194 conflicts by the base model's log-probability on the contradicted fact, baseline accuracy falls from 68% on weak-prior questions to 16% on strong-prior ones, a 52 percentage-point gap. The cure is amplitude. Selective Layer Boosting scales the adapter at its top-norm layers, and Conflict-Aware Internalization triggers boosting only when the base model is confident. Both are training-free; together they raise deep-conflict accuracy from 46.4% to 71.0% on Gemma-2B and from 53.6% to 72.5% on Mistral-7B while preserving novel-knowledge recall, and beat vanilla retrieval-augmented generation on medium conflicts by 18 percentage points despite operating entirely in parameter space. We release KID-Bench, a 489-question benchmark that separates novel recall, cross-knowledge combination, and prior-graded conflicts.

As software systems grow in complexity, they must satisfy an increasing number of competing quality attributes, making it essential to balance them in a principled manner -- for example, a safety requirement for sensor-fusion verification may conflict with a tight planning-cycle budget. Multi-agent large language model frameworks support this balancing process by assigning specialized agents to different objectives. However, their conflict resolution is typically heuristic. Requirements are aggregated implicitly without explicit acceptance or rejection, limiting auditability in regulated domains. We present ArgRE, a multi-agent requirements negotiation system that embeds Dung-style abstract argumentation into the negotiation stage. Each proposal, critique, and refinement is modeled as an argument, conflicts are represented as directed attack relations, and the accepted set of arguments is computed under grounded and preferred semantics. The pipeline further integrates KAOS goal modeling, multi-layer verification, and standards-oriented artifact generation. Evaluation across five case studies spanning safety-critical, financial, and information-system domains shows that ArgRE provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks. Independent evaluators rated its decision justifications significantly higher than those of heuristic synthesis (4.32 vs. 3.07, p < 0.001), indicating improved auditability, while semantic intent preservation remains comparable (94.9% BERTScore F1) and compliance coverage reaches 84.7% versus 47.6%--47.8% for baselines. Structural analysis further confirms that the default pairwise protocol yields acyclic graphs in which grounded and preferred semantics coincide, whereas cross-pair arbitration introduces controlled cyclicity, leading to predictable divergence between the two semantics.

Large language models (LLMs) often need to balance their internal parametric knowledge with external information, such as user beliefs and content from retrieved documents, in real-world scenarios like RAG or chat-based systems. A model's ability to reliably process these sources is key to system safety. Previous studies on knowledge conflict and sycophancy are limited to a binary conflict paradigm, primarily exploring conflicts between parametric knowledge and either a document or a user, but ignoring the interactive environment where all three sources exist simultaneously. To fill this gap, we propose a three-source interaction framework and systematically evaluate 27 LLMs from 3 families on 2 datasets. Our findings reveal general patterns: most models rely more on document assertions than user assertions, and this preference is reinforced by post-training. Furthermore, our behavioral analysis shows that most models are impressionable, unable to effectively discriminate between helpful and harmful external information. To address this, we demonstrate that fine-tuning on diverse source interaction data can significantly increase a model's discrimination abilities. In short, our work paves the way for developing trustworthy LLMs that can effectively and reliably integrate multiple sources of information. Code is available at https://github.com/shuowl/llm-source-balancing.

The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have expanded beyond natural language processing to scientific prediction tasks, including molecular property prediction. However, their effectiveness in in-context learning remains ambiguous, particularly given the potential for training data contamination in widely used benchmarks. This paper investigates whether LLMs perform genuine in-context regression on molecular properties or rely primarily on memorized values. Furthermore, we analyze the interplay between pre-trained knowledge and in-context information through a series of progressively blinded experiments. We evaluate nine LLM variants across three families (GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5) on three MoleculeNet datasets (Delaney solubility, Lipophilicity, QM7 atomization energy) using a systematic blinding approach that iteratively reduces available information. Complementing this, we utilize varying in-context sample sizes (0-, 60-, and 1000-shot) as an additional control for information access. This work provides a principled framework for evaluating molecular property prediction under controlled information access, addressing concerns regarding memorization and exposing conflicts between pre-trained knowledge and in-context information.

Explicit knowledge conflicts, occurring when retrieved contexts contain contradictory information, pose a fundamental challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) as they integrate increasingly diverse data sources. The core difficulty lies in the complexity of entangled narratives and heterogeneous conflict patterns, which frequently exceeds the reasoning capacity of standard backbone architectures. We propose \textbf{\textsc{Kcr}} (Knowledge Conflict Reasoning), a framework that adjudicates contradictions by systematically structuring their underlying logic. \textsc{Kcr} disentangles conflicting contexts into discrete sets of reasoning traces, utilizing a hybrid representation of text and graphs to facilitate systematic comprehension. It then employs a Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) paradigm to instill a reasoning policy that maximizes logical consistency while suppressing spurious paths derived from contradictory evidence. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that \textsc{Kcr} yields substantial performance gains. Notably, a 7B model enhanced by \textsc{Kcr} achieves adjudication capabilities that significantly outperform leading proprietary models, including GPT-4o and GPT-5.1, on complex tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/zhengxianda/KCR.