The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has significantly advanced intelligent systems. Unfortunately, LLMs often face knowledge conflicts between internal memory and retrieved external information, arising from misinformation, biases, or outdated knowledge. These conflicts undermine response reliability and introduce uncertainty in decision-making. In this work, we analyze how LLMs navigate knowledge conflicts from an information-theoretic perspective and reveal that when conflicting and supplementary information exhibit significant differences, LLMs confidently resolve their preferences and alleviate the uncertainty during their response generation. When this difference is ambiguous, LLMs experience considerable uncertainty about their generation. Based on this insight, we propose Swin-VIB, a novel framework that integrates a pipeline of variational information bottleneck models to adapt the retrieved information difference, facilitating robust response generation of LLMs even in conflicting contexts. Extensive experiments confirm our theoretical analysis and demonstrate the performance of Swin-VIB. Notably, Swin-VIB outperforms all competitive baselines in terms of the accuracy of the multiple-choice task, while improving the EM values in the open-ended QA task by at least 11.14%.

Incorporating external knowledge is crucial for knowledge-intensive tasks, such as question answering and fact checking. However, language models (LMs) may ignore relevant information that contradicts outdated parametric memory or be distracted by irrelevant contexts. While many context utilisation manipulation techniques (CMTs) have recently been proposed to alleviate these issues, few have seen systematic comparison. In this paper, we develop CUB (Context Utilisation Benchmark) - the first comprehensive benchmark designed to help practitioners within retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) diagnose CMTs under different context conditions. With this benchmark, we conduct the most extensive evaluation to date of seven state-of-the-art methods, representative of the main categories of CMTs, across three diverse datasets and tasks, applied to nine LMs. Our results reveal that most existing CMTs struggle to handle the full spectrum of context types encountered in real-world retrieval-augmented scenarios. We also find that many CMTs display inflated performance on simple synthesised datasets, compared to more realistic datasets with naturally occurring samples. Our findings expose critical gaps in current CMT evaluation practices and demonstrate the need for holistic testing and the development of CMTs that can robustly handle multiple context types.

Open domain question answering systems frequently rely on information retrieved from large collections of text (such as the Web) to answer questions. However, such collections of text often contain conflicting information, and indiscriminately depending on this information may result in untruthful and inaccurate answers. To understand the gravity of this problem, we collect a human-annotated dataset, Question Answering with Conflicting Contexts (QACC), and find that as much as 25% of unambiguous, open domain questions can lead to conflicting contexts when retrieved using Google Search. We evaluate and benchmark three powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) with our dataset QACC and demonstrate their limitations in effectively addressing questions with conflicting information. To explore how humans reason through conflicting contexts, we request our annotators to provide explanations for their selections of correct answers. We demonstrate that by finetuning LLMs to explain their answers, we can introduce richer information into their training that guide them through the process of reasoning with conflicting contexts.

Resolving knowledge conflicts is a crucial challenge in Question Answering (QA) tasks, as the internet contains numerous conflicting facts and opinions. While some research has made progress in tackling ambiguous settings where multiple valid answers exist, these approaches often neglect to provide source citations, leaving users to evaluate the factuality of each answer. On the other hand, existing work on citation generation has focused on unambiguous settings with single answers, failing to address the complexity of real-world scenarios. Despite the importance of both aspects, no prior research has combined them, leaving a significant gap in the development of QA systems. In this work, we bridge this gap by proposing the novel task of QA with source citation in ambiguous settings, where multiple valid answers exist. To facilitate research in this area, we create a comprehensive framework consisting of: (1) five novel datasets, obtained by augmenting three existing reading comprehension datasets with citation meta-data across various ambiguous settings, such as distractors and paraphrasing; (2) the first ambiguous multi-hop QA dataset featuring real-world, naturally occurring contexts; (3) two new metrics to evaluate models' performances; and (4) several strong baselines using rule-based, prompting, and finetuning approaches over five large language models. We hope that this new task, datasets, metrics, and baselines will inspire the community to push the boundaries of QA research and develop more trustworthy and interpretable systems.