跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.11 · 记录 #1

Benchmarking LLM’s Capability in Reasoning over Conflicting Web References

来源日期(仅到月份) 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 16:34
ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Large language models (LLMs) integrated with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) have become a dominant framework for building intelligent assistants. In real-world applications such as ChatGPT with web search, the retrieved document often comes from diverse, potentially unreliable sources and may contain inconsistent claims. Unlike traditional search engines that rely on users to manually compare information, LLM-based systems typically feed all retrieved content into the model’s context, requiring LLMs to autonomously identify, differentiate, and reason over conflicting viewpoints. Unlike mainstream LLM evaluation tasks like math and code generation that are primarily focused on reasoning with factual context, question-answering with multi-source references requires fundamentally different capabilities to identify and reason over knowledge contradictions. In this paper, we introduce ConfRAG, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ reasoning capability over real-world conflicting documents retrieved from the web. It consists of 1,814 real-world questions, each paired with an average of 9.58 retrieved paragraphs from heterogeneous online sources. A total of 57.2% of the questions exhibit explicit contradictions. We further propose three structured evaluation tasks, answer clustering, answer coverage, and reason coverage, to quantify a model’s ability to organize and explain contradictory content. Experiments with state-of-the-art models such as GPT-4.1 and Claude-3-7-Sonnet reveal substantial performance gaps, highlighting the need for more targeted research in contradiction-aware question answering. To the best of our knowledge, ConfRAG is the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate contradiction-aware reasoning on real-world long web documents.

论文发现出处

这些页面提供论文线索,不代表同行评审或质量认证。

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

发表信息与关联版本

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化,不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时,按该月或该年首日存档。

记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本

Benchmarking LLM’s Capability in Reasoning over Conflicting Web References

Large language models (LLMs) integrated with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) have become a dominant framework for building intelligent assistants. In real-world applications such as ChatGPT with web search, the retrieved document often comes from diverse, potentially unreliable sources and may contain inconsistent claims. Unlike traditional search engines that rely on users to manually compare information, LLM-based systems typically feed all retrieved content into the model’s context, requiring LLMs to autonomously identify, differentiate, and reason over conflicting viewpoints. Unlike mainstream LLM evaluation tasks like math and code generation that are primarily focused on reasoning with factual context, question-answering with multi-source references requires fundamentally different capabilities to identify and reason over knowledge contradictions. In this paper, we introduce ConfRAG, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ reasoning capability over real-world conflicting documents retrieved from the web. It consists of 1,814 real-world questions, each paired with an average of 9.58 retrieved paragraphs from heterogeneous online sources. A total of 57.2% of the questions exhibit explicit contradictions. We further propose three structured evaluation tasks, answer clustering, answer coverage, and reason coverage, to quantify a model’s ability to organize and explain contradictory content. Experiments with state-of-the-art models such as GPT-4.1 and Claude-3-7-Sonnet reveal substantial performance gaps, highlighting the need for more targeted research in contradiction-aware question answering. To the best of our knowledge, ConfRAG is the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate contradiction-aware reasoning on real-world long web documents.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗