Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Glitch in the Matrix? Locating and Detecting Language Model Grounding with Fakepedia

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 2312.02073 v3 pith:D6SSDS43 submitted 2023-12-04 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

A Glitch in the Matrix? Locating and Detecting Language Model Grounding with Fakepedia

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords groundingfakepediainformationcontextualknowledgellmsanalysisfactual
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have an impressive ability to draw on novel information supplied in their context. Yet the mechanisms underlying this contextual grounding remain unknown, especially in situations where contextual information contradicts factual knowledge stored in the parameters, which LLMs also excel at recalling. Favoring the contextual information is critical for retrieval-augmented generation methods, which enrich the context with up-to-date information, hoping that grounding can rectify outdated or noisy stored knowledge. We present a novel method to study grounding abilities using Fakepedia, a novel dataset of counterfactual texts constructed to clash with a model's internal parametric knowledge. In this study, we introduce Fakepedia, a counterfactual dataset designed to evaluate grounding abilities when the internal parametric knowledge clashes with the contextual information. We benchmark various LLMs with Fakepedia and conduct a causal mediation analysis of LLM components when answering Fakepedia queries, based on our Masked Grouped Causal Tracing (MGCT) method. Through this analysis, we identify distinct computational patterns between grounded and ungrounded responses. We finally demonstrate that distinguishing grounded from ungrounded responses is achievable through computational analysis alone. Our results, together with existing findings about factual recall mechanisms, provide a coherent narrative of how grounding and factual recall mechanisms interact within LLMs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.