这篇论文提出了MACR,能帮LLM自己判断知识是否可靠并解决矛盾,比过去的方法强不少,还能解释冲突。
MACR针对LLM推理中参数知识与外部上下文之间的冲突,提出了一种显式消解机制。该方法首先用修改的语义熵衡量模型对答案的置信度,据此内部知识不足时再检索外部信息。然后引入三个专用智能体,分别归纳规则、分析潜在冲突并消解所有不一致。实验在多个基准上显著超过现有方法,并提供可解释的冲突消解过程。
Navigating Unreliable Parametric and Contextual Knowledge: Explicit Knowledge Conflict Resolution for LLM Inference
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across a wide range of language-based tasks by leveraging both extensive parametric knowledge and in-context learning ability, enabling them to incorporate external information provided in the input prompt. However, the integration of external knowledge can introduce conflicts, not only between the model's internal parametric knowledge and the external information, but also among multiple pieces of external contexts. Existing approaches typically assume that either the model or the provided context is reliable, overlooking the possibility that both sources may contain errors, and avoid conflicts by privileging one source over the other, rather than actively resolving inconsistencies. To address these limitations, we propose a novel framework MACR for LLM knowledge conflict resolution that moves beyond the conventional binary choice paradigm and incorporates an explicit conflict-resolution mechanism based on a multi-agent reasoning approach. Specifically, we first propose an adaptive knowledge assessment and retrieval approach that employs a modified semantic entropy measure to quantify an LLM's confidence in its answer to a given query. Based on this confidence estimation, MACR either externalizes the model's internal knowledge as textual representations or retrieves relevant external knowledge when internal knowledge is insufficient, generating basic contexts for subsequent reasoning. Then we introduce an inductive multi-agent reasoning framework with three specialized agents that, respectively, induce explicit rules, analyze potential conflicts, and resolve inconsistencies across all available contexts. Empirical results demonstrate that MACR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across benchmarks, while also providing interpretable resolutions of explicit conflicts.