Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2305.05976 v2 pith:SF77MNQB submitted 2023-05-10 cs.CL

Say What You Mean! Large Language Models Speak Too Positively about Negative Commonsense Knowledge

classification cs.CL
keywords knowledgellmsnegativecommonsenselanguageabilityconflictlarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Tug-of-War within A Decade: Conflict Resolution in Vulnerability Analysis via Teacher-Guided Retrieval-Augmented Generations

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    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.