← Back to all news
arXiv Computation and Language By Peter Kochelka, Ale\v{s} Manuel Pap\'a\v{c}ek, Vojt\v{e}ch Dvo\v{r}\'ak, Ond\v{r}ej Du\v{s}ek

Do LLMs Make More Mistakes If They Do Not Believe the Input Data?

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are more prone to errors when they doubt the plausibility of input data, a phenomenon termed context‑memory conflict. Using non‑English and low‑resource language datasets, the authors generate text from factual, counterfactual, and fictional RDF triples in English, Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian, and evaluate faithfulness with both human annotations and an LLM judge (Kimi K3). Contrary to expectations, the results show only a weak context‑memory conflict: counterfactual inputs receive slightly lower faithfulness scores than factual ones, and the choice of LLM judge can significantly affect perceived conflict strength.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

Related stories

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 21

The Culture Within: Towards Mechanistic Understanding of Cultural Reasoning in LLMs

The paper introduces CultureLens, a benchmark with 9,261 scenarios from 75 countries that tests how large language models (LLMs) incorporate cultural information. Experiments on Llama‑3.1‑8B, Gemma‑3‑12B, and Qwen‑3.5‑27B show that presenting a contradictory cultural norm reduces aligned answers by 32‑47 percentage points, even when the model knows the correct country. Fine‑tuning with contradictory‑norm examples improves alignment to 85‑93% under contradictory norms while only slightly affecting performance under true norms.

By Samee Arif, Furkan Danisman, Angana Borah, Honglak Lee, Dehan Kong, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moontae Lee, Zhijing Jin, Rada Mihalcea
llmsfine-tuningbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 11

Probing for Knowledge Attribution in Large Language Models

The paper introduces a method for identifying the dominant knowledge source behind large language model (LLM) outputs, distinguishing between faithfulness violations (misuse of provided context) and factuality violations (errors in internal knowledge). A simple linear probe trained on hidden representations can reliably classify this source, and the authors present AttriWiki, a self‑supervised pipeline that generates labeled training data by prompting models to recall withheld entities or read them from context. Probes trained on AttriWiki achieve high Macro‑F1 scores across several models and datasets, generalize zero‑shot to a benchmark, and show that attribution mismatches can increase error rates by up to 70%. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that knowing the source of an LLM’s answer is crucial for effective mitigation of hallucinations, as attribution mismatches significantly raise error rates."

By Ivo Brink, Alexander Boer, Dennis Ulmer
llmsbenchmarkssafety
More like this →