What Evidence Do Language Models Find Convincing?
Open accessAbstract
Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
DEBATEQA sources questions from DELPHI (2,281), CONFLICTINGQA (434), and 1,758 manually sourced from the Web.
“First, we repurpose two existing datasets: we select 2,281 annotated controversial questions from DELPHI (Sun et al., 2023) and a full set of 434 questions from CONFLICTINGQA (Wan et al., 2024).To enrich the existing data, we further manually sourced 1,758 additional debatable questions from the Web (see Table 8 for detailed sources).”
From DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as Wan et al., 2024
Section 3 identifies CONFLICTINGQA as the cited paper’s dataset of contentious questions, supporting its identification as a source of questions. The passages do not give a total of 434 questions or establish that 434 is the full set (searched: “434” and Table 2 statistics). The DELPHI and Web counts are not attributed to Wan et al. in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRetrieval-augmented generation grounds outputs in external documents but depends on retrieval quality.
“retrieval-augmented generation grounds outputs in external documents yet depends on retrieval quality (Koopman and Zuccon, 2023; Wan et al., 2024; Kim et al., 2025)”
From Hallucination Detection-Guided Preference Optimization for Clinical Summarization (2026) · cites this paper as Wan et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- Sahar Abdelnabi and Mario Fritz. 2023. Fact-Saboteurs: A taxonomy of evidence manipulation attacks against fact-verification systems. In USENIX.
- Pranjal Aggarwal, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpuro- hit, Ashwin Kalyan, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Ameet Deshpande. 2023. GEO: Generative engine optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09735. · arXiv
- Vasilisa Bashlovkina, Zhaobin Kuang, Riley Matthews, Edward Clifford, Yennie Jun, William W. Cohen, and Simon Baumgartner. 2023. Trusted source align- ment in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06697. · arXiv
- Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS.
- Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading Wikipedia to answer open- domain questions. In ACL.
- Hung-Ting Chen, Michael JQ Zhang, and Eunsol Choi. 2022. Rich knowledge sources bring complex knowl- edge conflicts: Recalibrating models to reflect con- flicting evidence. In EMNLP.
- Yibing Du, Antoine Bosselut, and Christopher D Man- ning. 2022. Synthetic disinformation attacks on auto- mated fact verification systems. In AAAI.
- Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger. 2000. Per- ceptions of internet information credibility. Journal- ism & Mass Communication Quarterly.
- Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2023. PAL: Program-aided language models. In ICML.
- Martin Gleize, Eyal Shnarch, Leshem Choshen, Lena Dankin, Guy Moshkowich, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2019. Are you convinced? Choos- ing the more convincing evidence with a siamese network. In ACL.
- Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In ICML.
- Sebastian Hofstätter, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Jimmy Lin, and Allan Hanbury. 2021. Ef- ficiently teaching an effective dense retriever with balanced topic aware sampling. In SIGIR.
- Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In EMNLP.
- Yonggeol Jo, Minwoo Kim, and Kyungsik Han. 2019. How do humans assess the credibility on web blogs: Qualifying and verifying human factors with machine learning. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
- Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open- domain question answering. In EMNLP.
- Shayne Longpre, Kartik Perisetla, Anthony Chen, Nikhil Ramesh, Chris DuBois, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Entity-based knowledge conflicts in question answering. In EMNLP.
- Miriam J. Metzger, Andrew J. Flanagin, and Ryan Bradley Medders. 2010. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication.
- Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessì, Maria Lomeli, Christo- foros Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. 2023. Augmented language models: A survey. In TMLR.
- Sewon Min, Julian Michael, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. AmbigQA: Answering am- biguous open-domain questions. In EMNLP.
- Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, et al. 2021. WebGPT: Browser-assisted question- answering with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332. · arXiv
- Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. 2023. Attacking open-domain question answering by injecting misinformation. In AACL.
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. JMLR.
- Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2023. In-context retrieval-augmented lan- guage models. TACL.
- Sudha Rao and Hal Daumé III. 2018. Learning to ask good questions: Ranking clarification questions using neural expected value of perfect information. In ACL.
- Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2023. Whose opinions do language models reflect? In ICML.
- Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761. · arXiv
- Dushyant Sharma, Rishabh Shukla, Anil Kumar Giri, and Sumit Kumar. 2019. A brief review on search engine optimization. In Confluence.
- Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Min- joon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle- moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. REPLUG: Retrieval- augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652. · arXiv
- Haitian Sun, William W Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhutdi- nov. 2023. Answering ambiguous questions with a database of questions, answers, and revisions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08661. · arXiv
- Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023a. LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
- Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023b. LLaMA 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, An- drew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In ICLR.
- Jian Xie, Kai Zhang, Jiangjie Chen, Renze Lou, and Yu Su. 2023. Adaptive chameleon or stubborn sloth: Unraveling the behavior of large language models in knowledge conflicts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13300. · arXiv
- Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. WizardLM: Empowering large lan- guage models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244. · arXiv
- Hamed Zamani, Susan T. Dumais, Nick Craswell, Paul N. Bennett, and Gord Lueck. 2020. Generating clarifying questions for information retrieval. The Web Conference.
- Michael JQ Zhang and Eunsol Choi. 2021. SituatedQA: Incorporating extra-linguistic contexts into QA. In EMNLP.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Amayuelas, A., Yang, X., Antoniades, A., Hua, W., Pan, L., & Wang, W. Y. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.407 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Generative Engine Optimization: How to Dominate AI Search
Chen, M., Wang, X., Chen, K., & Koudas, N. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08919 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Wan et al. [9] explore how LLMs evaluate the persuasiveness of conflicting evidence through their proposed ConflictingQA dataset, which pairs contentious queries with real-world evidence documents supporting opposing answers.”
Jones, C. R., & Bergen, B. K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.17128 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge
Xu, R., Qi, X., Qi, Z., Xu, W., & Guo, Z. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-eacl.44 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Adversarial Search Engine Optimization for Large Language Models
Nestaas, F., Debenedetti, E., & Tramèr, F. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.18382 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Mirroring the findings of Wan, Wallace, and Klein [27], we find the LLM is more inclined to following Preference Manipulation Attacks that overlap significantly with the text of the user’s request.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDo as We Do, Not as You Think: the Conformity of Large Language Models
Weng, Z., Chen, G., & Wang, W. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13381 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Hallucination Detection-Guided Preference Optimization for Clinical Summarization
Seethakantha, S. K., Thai, D. N., Gudi, V. P., Tiwari, S., Matar, R., Mitra, A., Zhao, W., McCallum, A., & Salloum, W. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28910
“…model parameters: retrieval-augmented generation grounds outputs in external documents yet depends on retrieval quality (Koopman and Zuccon, 2023; Wan et al., 2024; Kim et al., 2025), while self-refinement(Madaan et al., 2023) and verification loops (Tang et al., 2023) iteratively critique and…”
SealQA: Raising the Bar for Reasoning in Search-Augmented Language Models
Pham, T., Nguyen, N., Zunjare, P., Chen, W., Tseng, Y.-M., & Vu, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.01062
“Wan et al. [2024] find that models prioritize surface-level relevance over credibility indicators such as scientific references or neutral tone.”
- Authors
- Wan, A., Wallace, E., & Klein, D.
- Affiliations
- Boston College (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- ORCID
- Klein, Dan
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 7468-7484
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.11782
- OpenAlex
- W4402671803
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 2.65
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- retrieval-augmented generation, controversial issues, conflicting evidence, appeal to authority, bibliographic references, counterfactual analysis, sensitivity analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
