Quantifying the Tension Between Large Language Models' Internal Knowledge and Retrieved Information in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Core Concepts

There is an inherent tension between a large language model's internal prior knowledge and the information presented in retrieved context, which can lead to unpredictable model behavior when the two sources disagree.

Abstract

The authors systematically analyze the tug-of-war between a large language model's (LLM) internal knowledge and the retrieved information in a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setting. They find that: The likelihood of the LLM adhering to the retrieved information (RAG preference rate) is inversely correlated with the model's confidence in its own prior response. LLMs are more likely to revert to their priors when the retrieved context is progressively modified with unrealistic values. These findings hold across 6 different datasets spanning over 1,200 questions, using GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Mistral-7B models. The authors also show that the choice of prompting technique can influence the strength of this relationship. The results highlight an underlying tension in LLMs between their pre-trained knowledge and the information presented in retrieved context. This has important implications for the reliability of RAG systems, especially as they are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains like healthcare and finance. The authors caution that users and developers should be aware of these unintended effects when relying on RAG-enabled LLMs.

Stats

The model's prior response only agreed with the reference answer 34.7% on average. Providing the retrieved context elevated the concordance to 94%. For every 10% increase in the probability of the prior token, there is a 2.3% decreased likelihood of the model preferring the RAG information.

Quotes

"As the RAG value diverges from the model's prior, the model is less likely to adopt the RAG value over its own initial response." "The choice of prompt is thus an important mechanism for influencing the LLM's RAG preferences."

Key Insights Distilled From

How faithful are RAG models? Quantifying the tug-of-war between RAG and LLMs' internal prior

by Kevin Wu,Eri... at arxiv.org 04-17-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.10198.pdf

Deeper Inquiries

How can we develop more robust prompting strategies to better align LLM responses with retrieved information, especially in high-stakes domains?

To enhance the alignment of LLM responses with retrieved information in critical domains, several strategies can be implemented: Customized Prompts: Tailoring prompts to specific domains can improve alignment. By incorporating domain-specific keywords, phrases, or constraints, prompts can guide the LLM to focus on relevant information. Adaptive Prompting: Implementing adaptive prompting techniques that adjust based on the model's prior responses can help steer the LLM towards accurate information. This dynamic approach can refine prompts based on the model's performance. Multi-Step Verification: Introducing multi-step verification processes where the LLM cross-checks its responses against retrieved content at different stages can enhance accuracy. This iterative approach can reduce errors and reinforce alignment. Contextual Clues: Including contextual cues within prompts can provide additional guidance to the LLM, helping it better understand the relevance and importance of retrieved information in generating responses. Human-in-the-Loop: Incorporating human oversight or feedback loops can further refine prompting strategies. Human annotators can validate responses, correct errors, and provide real-time guidance to improve alignment. Fine-Tuning Models: Fine-tuning LLMs on domain-specific data can enhance their understanding of context and improve alignment with retrieved information. Training models on relevant datasets can boost performance in high-stakes domains. By implementing these robust prompting strategies, LLMs can be guided to provide more accurate and aligned responses with retrieved information, especially in critical domains where precision is paramount.

What other factors, beyond the ones explored here, might influence the tug-of-war between an LLM's internal knowledge and retrieved context?

In addition to the factors discussed in the context, several other elements can influence the interplay between an LLM's internal knowledge and retrieved context: Model Architecture: The design and complexity of the LLM architecture can impact how it integrates internal knowledge with retrieved information. Different architectures may prioritize one source of information over the other, affecting the tug-of-war dynamics. Training Data Bias: Biases present in the training data can skew the LLM's internal knowledge, leading to conflicts with retrieved context. Addressing and mitigating biases in training data can help balance the influence of internal knowledge and external context. Task Complexity: The complexity of the task or query can influence how the LLM weighs internal knowledge against retrieved context. More intricate tasks may require deeper reasoning and reliance on external information, altering the tug-of-war dynamics. Temporal Relevance: The timeliness of retrieved information relative to the LLM's training data can impact its relevance and influence on responses. Outdated or irrelevant information may lead to conflicts with the model's internal knowledge. Confidence Calibration: The LLM's confidence calibration in its responses can affect how it balances internal knowledge and retrieved context. Overconfidence or underconfidence in either information source can skew the tug-of-war dynamics. Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations, such as fairness, transparency, and accountability, can also play a role in the tug-of-war. Ethical guidelines and constraints may influence how the LLM integrates internal and external information. Considering these additional factors can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in the tug-of-war between an LLM's internal knowledge and retrieved context.

How can we design RAG systems that can effectively detect and correct errors or inconsistencies in the retrieved information, rather than simply deferring to it?

Designing RAG systems that can actively detect and correct errors or inconsistencies in retrieved information requires a proactive approach to information verification and validation. Here are some strategies to achieve this: Cross-Validation Mechanisms: Implementing cross-validation mechanisms where the LLM cross-references multiple sources of information can help identify discrepancies and errors. By comparing information from different sources, the system can detect inconsistencies. Fact-Checking Modules: Integrating fact-checking modules within RAG systems can enable real-time verification of retrieved information. These modules can flag inaccuracies, errors, or outdated data, prompting the LLM to verify and correct the information. Confidence Thresholds: Setting confidence thresholds for retrieved information can guide the LLM in determining the reliability of external data. If the confidence level falls below a certain threshold, the system can trigger error detection and correction processes. Error Correction Models: Training error correction models alongside RAG systems can enable the LLM to identify and rectify errors in retrieved information. These models can learn to recognize common errors and inconsistencies, improving the system's accuracy. Feedback Loops: Establishing feedback loops where human annotators or domain experts provide feedback on responses can help identify and correct errors. Continuous feedback can enhance the system's ability to detect and rectify inconsistencies. Dynamic Contextual Analysis: Incorporating dynamic contextual analysis techniques that assess the coherence and consistency of retrieved information within the broader context can aid in error detection. By analyzing contextual cues, the system can identify and address inconsistencies. By integrating these strategies into RAG systems, we can empower the models to actively detect and correct errors or inconsistencies in retrieved information, ensuring the reliability and accuracy of the responses generated.