Most prior works focused on conflicts between an LLM's internal parametric knowledge and externally provided context. In contrast, we investigate how LLMs handle conflicts that arise within contextual knowledge itself. We introduce a taxonomy of six types of contextual conflicts (factual, inferential, temporal, granularity, perspective, and ambiguity) and contribute a comprehensive dataset ContextConflict for this setting. The dataset contains 5,781 samples, covers both reasoning and summarization tasks, and includes both explicit contradictions and implicit conflicts that require multi-step reasoning. Experiments on nine LLMs show that current models still fall short in resolving contextual knowledge conflicts. We further provide mechanistic interpretability insights into how LLMs process such conflicts, revealing their latent awareness of conflicts and the representational geometry underlying conflict processing. In addition, our analysis uncovers a consistent model bias towards earlier evidence, and this positional preference serves as a key obstacle to effective conflict resolution. Motivated by these findings, we further propose a simple training-free, label-free steering method that steers activations to encourage a more comprehensive incorporation of evidences for better conflict resolution. On our dataset, the method consistently improves accuracy on reasoning tasks and generates higher-quality, more balanced summaries for summarization tasks.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves language models by grounding generation in external context. However, it can be fragile when the retrieved context conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. Such conflicts span a reliability spectrum, ranging from reliable and partially reliable evidence to adversarial context. Existing remedies often handle such heterogeneous conflicts with regime-agnostic supervision, which can conflate incompatible learning signals across reliability regimes. To disentangle these signals, we propose RAPS-DA, a regime-aware peer specialization framework that addresses conflict at two complementary granularities. At the sample level, conflicts are divided into three regimes, including Grounding, Arbitration, and Resistance, with one same-scale peer specialist trained per regime from a shared base model. Each sample is then hard-routed to its regime-matched peer for on-policy reverse-KL supervision. At the token level, a dual-layer selector uses inter-teacher disagreement, student-teacher divergence, and student entropy to filter uninformative or unstable tokens, upweight confidently misaligned ones, and gradually focus supervision on high-conflict tokens as the student matures. Gains stem from specialization at a fixed model scale, not from a stronger teacher, and the peer specialists exist only during training, so the deployed student requires no regime labels or peer access. Experiments on five conflict scenarios and two out-of-distribution benchmarks show RAPS-DA surpasses all prompting, decoding, fine-tuning, RL, and single-teacher baselines.
Hallucinations -- factually incorrect or unverifiable outputs -- remain one of the most challenging limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs), especially in knowledge-intensive tasks. One proposed explanation is internal knowledge conflicts arising from fixed, outdated training data. This paper investigates whether internal representations linked to knowledge conflicts correlate with hallucination behaviors in LLMs. Using probing techniques inspired by two prior works, we analyzed activations from hidden, attention, and MLP layers, as well as output logits, across predefined tasks. We probed LLaMA-3-8B on hallucination detection benchmarks and Falcon-7B on a knowledge conflict dataset. Our findings show that, although conceptually related, hallucination activation patterns cannot be fully reduced to or explained by knowledge conflict representations. Nonetheless, probing proves a robust tool across multiple languages and activation types, supporting its role in improving LLM interpretability. This work advances the broader understanding of hallucinations in LLMs and underscores the value of fine-grained analysis of their internal behavior.