Ritajit Dey

Ritajit Dey, Iadh Ounis, Graham McDonald et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with temporal fact conflicts due to outdated or evolving information in their training data. Two recent studies with accompanying datasets report opposite conclusions on whether external context can effectively resolve such conflicts. DYNAMICQA evaluates how effective external context is in shifting the model's output distribution, finding that temporal facts are more resistant to change. In contrast, MULAN examines how often external context changes memorised facts, concluding that temporal facts are easier to update. In this reproducibility paper, we first reproduce experiments from both benchmarks. We then reproduce the experiments of each study on the dataset of the other to investigate the source of their disagreement. To enable direct comparison of findings, we standardise both datasets to align with the evaluation settings of each study. Importantly, using an LLM, we synthetically generate realistic natural language contexts to replace MULAN's programmatically constructed statements when reproducing the findings of DYNAMICQA. Our analysis reveals strong dataset dependence: MULAN's findings generalise under both methodological frameworks, whereas applying MULAN's evaluation to DYNAMICQA yields mixed outcomes. Finally, while the original studies only considered 7B LLMs, we reproduce these experiments across LLMs of varying sizes, revealing how model size influences the encoding and updating of temporal facts. Our results highlight how dataset design, evaluation metrics, and model size shape LLM behaviour in the presence of temporal knowledge conflicts.

Ritajit Dey, Iadh Ounis, Graham McDonald

Large language models (LLMs) achieve a strong performance in question answering (QA), but remain prone to hallucinations and suffer from limited transparency. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve factuality, yet decisions about when and how to retrieve from external resources are typically based on opaque policies or computationally inefficient multi-step prompting procedures. We propose an uncertainty-aware framework for adaptive QA based on explicit signals derived from LLM internal representations. We distinguish between knowledge insufficiency and knowledge ambiguity or conflict, and efficiently estimate these from hidden states in a single forward pass. These signals guide system behaviour: RAG is triggered when knowledge is insufficient, while additional reasoning is applied when ambiguity or conflict is high. By grounding adaptive decisions in decomposed and efficiently estimable uncertainty signals, this approach provides a transparent and practical alternative to existing retrieval and reasoning strategies supporting the design of interpretable user-facing tools.