Which Knowledge Should LLMs Trust? Uncovering a Generalizable Steering Direction Across Knowledge Conflicts

cs.CL cs.AI Yibin Lou, Yi Hu, Jianhui Chen, Chenpeng Wang, Muhan Zhang, Liangming Pan · Oct 14, 2026
Local to this browser
What it does
Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently encounter conflicts between internal parametric knowledge and external contextual knowledge, yet the mechanisms governing this selection remain unclear. We show that the choice between context and...
Why it matters
Across four model families and multiple transfer settings, steering consistently improves the use of prompt-provided information over the unsteered model. These results suggest that the direction captures a transferable preference for...
Review status
The review hit a snag and will retry automatically. The abstract is still available below.
Community signal
0
0 up · 0 down
Sign in to vote with arrows
AI Review Review failed

Review failed. It will be retried automatically.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently encounter conflicts between internal parametric knowledge and external contextual knowledge, yet the mechanisms governing this selection remain unclear. We show that the choice between context and parametric knowledge is linearly represented and can be controlled along a single direction in the model's residual stream. We first demonstrate that this direction generalizes across factual-conflict settings, including context formats, knowledge categories, and datasets, while consistently shifting behavior between parametric and contextual answers. We then transfer a direction learned from simple factual conflicts to three more complex task families: RAG, memory, and rule following, where models must acquire information from retrieved documents, interaction histories, or explicit rules. Across four model families and multiple transfer settings, steering consistently improves the use of prompt-provided information over the unsteered model. These results suggest that the direction captures a transferable preference for external knowledge rather than a mechanism specific to factual conflicts.

Challenge the Review

Pick a starting point or write your own. Challenges run in the background, so you can keep reading while the AI investigates.

No challenges yet. Disagree with the review? Ask the AI to revisit a specific claim.