The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey
Abstract
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 1×
“They observe that LLMs tend to prioritize parametric knowledge thanks to the greater similarity between generated contents and input, as well as the often incomplete nature of retrieved information.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory
He, Z., Lin, W., Zheng, H., Zhang, F., Jones, M. W., Aitchison, L., Xu, X., Liu, M., Kristensson, P. O., & Shen, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00489 · Cited by 3
“It also helps resolve conflicts and hallucinations in retrieved memory [145, 151] and can enhance query through techniques like LLM-based augmentation [203, 141, 205, 182, 208, 204, 207, 206] and reinforcement learning [19, 201, 202].”
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
Self-citationSealQA: 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Xu, R., Qi, Z., Guo, Z., Wang, C., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., & Xu, W.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2403.08319
- References
- 1
- Type
- Preprint
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
