Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Rich Knowledge Sources Bring Complex Knowledge Conflicts: Recalibrating Models to Reflect Conflicting Evidence

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2210.13701 v1 pith:PXJBRX25 submitted 2022-10-25 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords knowledgemodelssourcesanswermodelretrievedconflictingconflicts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Question answering models can use rich knowledge sources -- up to one hundred retrieved passages and parametric knowledge in the large-scale language model (LM). Prior work assumes information in such knowledge sources is consistent with each other, paying little attention to how models blend information stored in their LM parameters with that from retrieved evidence documents. In this paper, we simulate knowledge conflicts (i.e., where parametric knowledge suggests one answer and different passages suggest different answers) and examine model behaviors. We find retrieval performance heavily impacts which sources models rely on, and current models mostly rely on non-parametric knowledge in their best-performing settings. We discover a troubling trend that contradictions among knowledge sources affect model confidence only marginally. To address this issue, we present a new calibration study, where models are discouraged from presenting any single answer when presented with multiple conflicting answer candidates in retrieved evidences.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools