arXiv Computation and Language By Yoojin Kim, Jihyoung Jang, Hyounghun Kim

PACE: Towards Surfacing Hidden Conflicts in User Requests

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces PACE, a dataset that tests whether personalized assistants can detect hidden conflicts in user requests by integrating implicit, egocentric knowledge from a knowledge base. PACE pairs user requests with persona-specific facts, requiring models to retrieve contextual evidence before deciding if a request is inappropriate. The authors also propose PaceMaker, a multi-agent system that improves conflict detection by coordinating query reformulation, multi-hop graph traversal, and conflict-aware filtering, outperforming existing methods on the PACE benchmark.

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.

arXiv AI
Jun 19

Navigating Unreliable Parametric and Contextual Knowledge: Explicit Knowledge Conflict Resolution for LLM Inference

arXiv:2606. 20245v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.

By Huang Peng, Jiuyang Tang, Weixin Zeng, Hao Xu, Xiang Zhao
arXiv AI
Sep 4

KC-Bench: A Dynamic Interactive Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Conflicts in LLM Agents

KC-Bench is a dynamic interactive benchmark designed to evaluate how large language model agents reconcile user instructions, internal knowledge, and real‑time environmental observations. It contains 238 manually curated multi‑turn tasks that test world‑knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi‑source temporal conflicts, using 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—reveals significant cross‑domain variation, with no model reliably handling factual correction, identity consistency checking, and temporal conflict resolution across all settings, and shows that missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected‑data flows.

By Yaxing Lyu, Shengjie Zhou, Binbin Toh, Pengyu Zhu, Lijun Li
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 4

Large Language Models in Resolving Contextual Knowledge Conflicts

The paper introduces a taxonomy of six types of contextual knowledge conflicts—factual, inferential, temporal, granularity, perspective, and ambiguity—and presents the ContextConflict dataset with 5,781 samples covering reasoning and summarization tasks. Experiments on nine large language models reveal that current models struggle to resolve these conflicts, exhibit a bias toward earlier evidence, and show latent awareness of conflicts in their internal representations. The authors propose a training‑free, label‑free steering method that adjusts activations to better incorporate evidence, consistently improving reasoning accuracy and producing higher‑quality, balanced summaries on the dataset.

By Xinye Yang, Zhenyang Liu, Ruisi Li, Yuanyuan Lei
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 2

Large Language Models in Resolving Contextual Knowledge Conflicts

The paper examines how large language models resolve conflicts that arise within contextual knowledge, rather than between internal knowledge and external context. It introduces a taxonomy of six contextual conflict types and presents the ContextConflict dataset with 5,781 samples covering reasoning and summarization tasks. Experiments on nine LLMs reveal persistent shortcomings in conflict resolution, uncover a bias toward earlier evidence, and propose a training‑free steering method that improves accuracy and summary quality.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 3

KC-Bench: A Dynamic Interactive Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Conflicts in LLM Agents

KC-Bench is a dynamic interactive benchmark designed to evaluate how large language model agents reconcile user instructions, internal knowledge, and real‑time environmental observations. It consists of 238 manually curated multi‑turn tasks that test world‑knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi‑source temporal conflicts, using 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—reveals significant cross‑domain variation, with no model reliably handling factual correction, identity consistency, and temporal conflict resolution across all settings, and shows that missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected‑data flows.