We study how to perform unlearning, i.e. forgetting undesirable (mis)behaviors, on large language models (LLMs).

Human feedback is central to the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs).

The claim and evidence conflict pairs can be found at https://huggingface. The scope of our dataset is purely for scientific research. Conflict V erification: Ensuring that the default and conflict evidence are contradictory. The human evaluation results showed a high level of accuracy in our data generation process. We select models with 2B and 7B parameters for our analysis. MA2 [ Touvron et al., 2023 ] is a popular open-source foundation model, trained on 2T Models with 7B and 70B parameters are selected for our analysis. To facilitate parallel training, we employ DeepSpeed Zero-Stage 3 [ Ren et al., The prompt for generating semantic conflict descriptions is shown in Figure 1 . The prompt for generating default evidence is shown in Table 6 . The prompt for generating misinformation conflict evidence is shown in Table 7 . The prompt for generating temporal conflict evidence is shown in Table 8 . The prompt for generating semantic conflict evidence is shown in Table 9 .

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive advancements across numerous disciplines, yet the critical issue of knowledge conflicts, a major source of hallucinations, has rarely been studied. While a few research explored the conflicts between the inherent knowledge of LLMs and the retrieved contextual knowledge, a comprehensive assessment of knowledge conflict in LLMs is still missing.

Despite extensive efforts to create fairer machine learning (ML) datasets, there remains a limited understanding of the practical aspects of dataset curation.

However, a pivotal aspect of alignment for honesty involves discerning an LLM's