The advent of large language models (LLMs) [Brown et al., 2020] has revolutionized the field of

Recent text-to-image (T2I) generation models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in creating images from text descriptions.

Personalized Federated Graph Learning (pFGL) facilitates the decentralized training of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) without compromising privacy while accommodating personalized requirements for non-IID participants. In cross-domain scenarios, structural heterogeneity poses significant challenges for pFGL. Nevertheless, previous pFGL methods incorrectly share non-generic knowledge globally and fail to tailor personalized solutions locally under domain structural shift. We innovatively reveal that the spectral nature of graphs can well reflect inherent domain structural shifts. Correspondingly, our method overcomes it by sharing generic spectral knowledge. Moreover, we indicate the biased message-passing schemes for graph structures and propose the personalized preference module.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs), such as hallucinations and outdated information. However, it remains unclear how LLMs handle knowledge conflicts arising from different augmented retrieved passages, especially when these passages originate from the same source and have equal trustworthiness. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions that have varying answers based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia, a dataset widely regarded as a high-quality pre-training resource for most LLMs. Specifically, we introduce WikiContradict, a benchmark consisting of 253 high-quality, human-annotated instances designed to assess the performance of LLMs in providing a complete perspective on conflicts from the retrieved documents, rather than choosing one answer over another, when augmented with retrieved passages containing real-world knowledge conflicts. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages. Through rigorous human evaluations on a subset of WikiContradict instances involving 5 LLMs and over 3,500 judgements, we shed light on the behaviour and limitations of these models. For instance, when provided with two passages containing contradictory facts, all models struggle to generate answers that accurately reflect the conflicting nature of the context, especially for implicit conflicts requiring reasoning. Since human evaluation is costly, wealso introduce an automated model that estimates LLM performance using a strong open-source language model, achieving an F-score of 0.8. Using this automated metric, we evaluate more than 1,500 answers from seven LLMs across all WikiContradict instances.

Large language models (LLMs) have achievedimpressive 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.

It is widely acknowledged that large language models (LLMs) encode a vast reservoir of knowledge after being trained on mass data. Recent studies disclose knowledge conflicts in LLM generation, wherein outdated or incorrect parametric knowledge (i.e., encoded knowledge) contradicts new knowledge provided in the context. To mitigate such knowledge conflicts, we propose a novel framework, IRCAN (Identifying and Reweighting Context-Aware Neurons) to capitalize on neurons that are crucial in processing contextual cues. Specifically, IRCAN first identifies neurons that significantly contribute to context processing, utilizing a context-aware attribution score derived from integrated gradients. Subsequently, the identified context-aware neurons are strengthened via reweighting. In doing so, we steer LLMs to generate context-sensitive outputs with respect to the new knowledge provided in the context. Extensive experiments conducted across a variety of models and tasks demonstrate that IRCAN not only achieves remarkable improvements in handling knowledge conflicts but also offers a scalable, plug-and-play solution that can be integrated seamlessly with existing models.

How do language models use contextual information to answer health questions? How are their responses impacted by conflicting contexts? We assess the ability of language models to reason over long, conflicting biomedical contexts using HealthContradict, an expert-verified dataset comprising 920 unique instances, each consisting of a health-related question, a factual answer supported by scientific evidence, and two documents presenting contradictory stances. We consider several prompt settings, including correct, incorrect or contradictory context, and measure their impact on model outputs. Compared to existing medical question-answering evaluation benchmarks, HealthContradict provides greater distinctions of language models' contextual reasoning capabilities. Our experiments show that the strength of fine-tuned biomedical language models lies not only in their parametric knowledge from pretraining, but also in their ability to exploit correct context while resisting incorrect context.

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%.

LLMs often fail to handle temporal knowledge conflicts--contradictions arising when facts evolve over time within their training data. Existing studies evaluate this phenomenon through benchmarks built on structured knowledge bases like Wikidata, but they focus on widely-covered, easily-memorized popular entities and lack the dynamic structure needed to fairly evaluate LLMs with different knowledge cut-off dates. We introduce evolveQA, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs on temporally evolving knowledge, constructed from 3 real-world, time-stamped corpora: AWS updates, Azure changes, and WHO disease outbreak reports. Our framework identifies naturally occurring knowledge evolution and generates questions with gold answers tailored to different LLM knowledge cut-off dates. Through extensive evaluation of 12 open and closed-source LLMs across 3 knowledge probing formats, we demonstrate significant performance drops of up to 31% on evolveQA compared to static knowledge questions.