REVIEW 1 cited by
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
Say What You Mean! Large Language Models Speak Too Positively about Negative Commonsense Knowledge
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have been widely studied for their ability to store and utilize positive knowledge. However, negative knowledge, such as "lions don't live in the ocean", is also ubiquitous in the world but rarely mentioned explicitly in the text. What do LLMs know about negative knowledge? This work examines the ability of LLMs to negative commonsense knowledge. We design a constrained keywords-to-sentence generation task (CG) and a Boolean question-answering task (QA) to probe LLMs. Our experiments reveal that LLMs frequently fail to generate valid sentences grounded in negative commonsense knowledge, yet they can correctly answer polar yes-or-no questions. We term this phenomenon the belief conflict of LLMs. Our further analysis shows that statistical shortcuts and negation reporting bias from language modeling pre-training cause this conflict.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Tug-of-War within A Decade: Conflict Resolution in Vulnerability Analysis via Teacher-Guided Retrieval-Augmented Generations
CRVA-TGRAG combines parent-document segmentation, ensemble retrieval, and teacher-guided fine-tuning to mitigate knowledge conflicts and improve accuracy in LLM-based CVE vulnerability analysis.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.