Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

Factual knowledge encoded in Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) enriches their representations and justifies their use as knowledge bases. Previous work has focused on probing PLMs for factual knowledge by measuring how often they can correctly predict an object entity given a subject and a relation, and improving fact retrieval by optimizing the prompts used for querying PLMs. In this work, we consider a complementary aspect, namely the coherency of factual knowledge in PLMs, i.e., how often can PLMs predict the subject entity given its initial prediction of the object entity. This goes beyond evaluating how much PLMs know, and focuses on the internal state of knowledge inside them. Our results indicate that PLMs have low coherency using manually written, optimized and paraphrased prompts, but including an evidence paragraph leads to substantial improvement. This shows that PLMs fail to model inverse relations and need further enhancements to be able to handle retrieving facts from their parameters in a coherent manner, and to be considered as knowledge bases.

Medical Question Answering~(medical QA) systems play an essential role in assisting healthcare workers in finding answers to their questions. However, it is not sufficient to merely provide answers by medical QA systems because users might want explanations, that is, more analytic statements in natural language that describe the elements and context that support the answer. To do so, we propose a novel approach for generating natural language explanations for answers predicted by medical QA systems. As high-quality medical explanations require additional medical knowledge, so that our system extract knowledge from medical textbooks to enhance the quality of explanations during the explanation generation process. Concretely, we designed an expectation-maximization approach that makes inferences about the evidence found in these texts, offering an efficient way to focus attention on lengthy evidence passages. Experimental results, conducted on two datasets MQAE-diag and MQAE, demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework for reasoning with textual evidence. Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art models, achieving a significant improvement of \textbf{6.86} and \textbf{9.43} percentage points on the Rouge-1 score; \textbf{8.23} and \textbf{7.82} percentage points on the Bleu-4 score on the respective datasets.