Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in long chain-of-thought reasoning often fail when different knowledge sources provide conflicting signals. We formalize these failures under a unified notion of knowledge conflict, distinguishing input-level objective conflict from process-level effective conflict. Through probing internal representations, we reveal that: (I) Linear Separability: different conflict types are explicitly encoded as linearly separable features rather than entangled; (II) Depth Localization: conflict signals concentrate in mid-to-late layers, indicating a distinct processing stage for conflict encoding; (III) Hierarchical Consistency: aggregating noisy token-level signals along trajectories robustly recovers input-level conflict types; and (IV) Directional Asymmetry: reinforcing the model's implicit source preference under conflict is far easier than enforcing the opposite source. Our findings provide a mechanism-level view of multimodal reasoning under knowledge conflict and enable principled diagnosis and control of long-CoT failures.
In three-way conflict analysis, preference-based conflict situations characterize agents' attitudes towards issues by formally modeling their preferences over pairs of issues. However, existing preference-based conflict models rely exclusively on three qualitative relations, namely, preference, converse, and indifference, to describe agents' attitudes towards issue pairs, which significantly limits their capacity in capturing the essence of conflict. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the concept of an intuitionistic fuzzy preference-based conflict situation that captures agents' attitudes towards issue pairs with finer granularity than that afforded by classical preference-based models. Afterwards, we develop intuitionistic fuzzy preference-based conflict measures within this framework, and construct three-way conflict analysis models for trisecting the set of agent pairs, the agent set, and the issue set. Additionally, relative loss functions built on the proposed conflict functions are employed to calculate thresholds for three-way conflict analysis. Finally, we present adjustment mechanism-based feasible strategies that simultaneously account for both adjustment magnitud
Conflict fatalities tend to follow heavy-tailed statistical distributions. A 2005 fusion-fission theory predicts mathematically that for armed groups operating in dynamically evolving clusters within a given conflict, the number of fatalities per conflict event will follow an approximate power-law distribution with exponent near 2.5, with the specific exponent value offering insight into the relative robustness of larger versus smaller clusters of fighters in that armed group. Since Yemen and Syria are current hotspots for future conflict, yet their most recent conflicts (2023-2025) have not been studied at the event level, we use ACLED data to determine their best-fit exponent value as each conflict evolved. We find that the exponent lies between 2.5 and 3.5 predominantly throughout each conflict, which suggests that the fighters in each of these conflicts continued to operate in smaller clusters as the conflict evolved. Moreover, temporary reductions in the exponent value -- which suggests a temporary increase in the robustness and involvement of larger clusters of fighters -- appear to arise during major crises ahead of the largest battles. Though the lack higher-quality data fo
A conflict-free cut $F$ on a simple connected graph $G = (V, E)$ is defined as a set of edges $F \subseteq E$ such that $G-F$ is disconnected, and no two edges in $F$ are conflicting. The notion of conflicting edges is represented using an associated conflict graph $\widehat{G} = (\widehat{V}, \widehat{E})$ where $\widehat{V} = E$. Deciding if a given planar graph $G$, with an associated conflict graph $\widehat{G}$, has a conflict-free cut is known to be NP-complete, when $G$ has maximum degree four and $\widehat{G}$ is a line graph of $G$ [Bonsma, JGT 2009]. In this paper, we prove the following for the case when $\widehat{G}$ is 1-regular. * We completely resolve the complexity of the decision problem when $G$ is planar. Towards this end, we show that (a) there always exists a conflict-free cut when the graph is planar and 4-regular unless it is the octahedron graph and (b) the decision problem is NP-complete, even in the case when $G$ is planar with maximum degree 5. * We also show that the decision problem is NP-complete when $G$ is a 3-degenerate graph with maximum degree 5. This completely resolves the complexity status of the problem when $G$ is 3-degenerate. * We construct
Resolving conflicts from merging different software versions is a challenging task. To reduce the overhead of manual merging, researchers develop various program analysis-based tools which only solve specific types of conflicts and have a limited scope of application. With the development of language models, researchers treat conflict code as text, which theoretically allows for addressing almost all types of conflicts. However, the absence of effective conflict difficulty grading methods hinders a comprehensive evaluation of large language models (LLMs), making it difficult to gain a deeper understanding of their limitations. Furthermore, there is a notable lack of large-scale open benchmarks for evaluating the performance of LLMs in automatic conflict resolution. To address these issues, we introduce ConGra, a CONflict-GRAded benchmarking scheme designed to evaluate the performance of software merging tools under varying complexity conflict scenarios. We propose a novel approach to classify conflicts based on code operations and use it to build a large-scale evaluation dataset based on 44,948 conflicts from 34 real-world projects. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on conflict res
The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly influenced the quality of information in decision-making systems, leading to the prevalence of AI-generated content and challenges in detecting misinformation and managing conflicting information, or "inter-evidence conflicts." This study introduces a method for generating diverse, validated evidence conflicts to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios. We evaluate conflict detection methods, including Natural Language Inference (NLI) models, factual consistency (FC) models, and LLMs, on these conflicts (RQ1) and analyze LLMs' conflict resolution behaviors (RQ2). Our key findings include: (1) NLI and LLM models exhibit high precision in detecting answer conflicts, though weaker models suffer from low recall; (2) FC models struggle with lexically similar answer conflicts, while NLI and LLM models handle these better; and (3) stronger models like GPT-4 show robust performance, especially with nuanced conflicts. For conflict resolution, LLMs often favor one piece of conflicting evidence without justification and rely on internal knowledge if they have prior beliefs.
Are big conflicts different from small or medium size conflicts? To answer this question, we leverage fine-grained conflict data, which we map to climate, geography, infrastructure, economics, raw demographics, and demographic composition in Africa. With an unsupervised learning model, we find three overarching conflict types representing ``major unrest,'' ``local conflict,'' and ``sporadic and spillover events.'' Major unrest predominantly propagates around densely populated areas with well-developed infrastructure and flat, riparian geography. Local conflicts are in regions of median population density, are diverse socio-economically and geographically, and are often confined within country borders. Finally, sporadic and spillover conflicts remain small, often in low population density areas, with little infrastructure and poor economic conditions. The three types stratify into a hierarchy of factors that highlights population, infrastructure, economics, and geography, respectively, as the most discriminative indicators. Specifying conflict type negatively impacts the predictability of conflict intensity such as fatalities, conflict duration, and other measures of conflict size.
Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is a commonly used approach for enhancing large language models (LLMs) with relevant and up-to-date information. However, the retrieved sources can often contain conflicting information and it remains unclear how models should address such discrepancies. In this work, we first propose a novel taxonomy of knowledge conflict types in RAG, along with the desired model behavior for each type. We then introduce CONFLICTS, a high-quality benchmark with expert annotations of conflict types in a realistic RAG setting. CONFLICTS is the first benchmark that enables tracking progress on how models address a wide range of knowledge conflicts. We conduct extensive experiments on this benchmark, showing that LLMs often struggle to appropriately resolve conflicts between sources. While prompting LLMs to explicitly reason about the potential conflict in the retrieved documents significantly improves the quality and appropriateness of their responses, substantial room for improvement in future research remains.
I present a novel approach to estimating the temporal and spatial patterns of violent conflict. I show how we can use highly temporally and spatially disaggregated data on conflict events in tandem with Gaussian processes to estimate temporospatial conflict trends. These trends can be studied to gain insight into conflict traps, diffusion and tempo-spatial conflict exposure in general; they can also be used to control for such phenomenons given other estimation tasks; lastly, the approach allow us to extrapolate the estimated tempo-spatial conflict patterns into future temporal units, thus facilitating powerful, stat-of-the-art, conflict forecasts. Importantly, these results are achieved via a relatively parsimonious framework using only one data source: past conflict patterns.
Large language models (LLMs) often encounter knowledge conflicts, scenarios where discrepancy arises between the internal parametric knowledge of LLMs and non-parametric information provided in the prompt context. In this work we ask what are the desiderata for LLMs when a knowledge conflict arises and whether existing LLMs fulfill them. We posit that LLMs should 1) identify knowledge conflicts, 2) pinpoint conflicting information segments, and 3) provide distinct answers or viewpoints in conflicting scenarios. To this end, we introduce an evaluation framework for simulating contextual knowledge conflicts and quantitatively evaluating to what extent LLMs achieve these goals. It includes diverse and complex situations of knowledge conflict, knowledge from diverse entities and domains, two synthetic conflict creation methods, and settings with progressively increasing difficulty to reflect realistic knowledge conflicts. Extensive experiments with the framework reveal that while LLMs perform well in identifying the existence of knowledge conflicts, they struggle to determine the specific conflicting knowledge and produce a response with distinct answers amidst conflicting information.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance across natural language tasks, but their ability to forecast violent conflict remains underexplored. We investigate whether LLMs possess meaningful parametric knowledge-encoded in their pretrained weights-to predict conflict escalation and fatalities without external data. This is critical for early warning systems, humanitarian planning, and policy-making. We compare this parametric knowledge with non-parametric capabilities, where LLMs access structured and unstructured context from conflict datasets (e.g., ACLED, GDELT) and recent news reports via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Incorporating external information could enhance model performance by providing up-to-date context otherwise missing from pretrained weights. Our two-part evaluation framework spans 2020-2024 across conflict-prone regions in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. In the parametric setting, LLMs predict conflict trends and fatalities relying only on pretrained knowledge. In the non-parametric setting, models receive summaries of recent conflict events, indicators, and geopolitical developments. We compare predicted conflict trend labels
Traffic conflicts have been studied by the transportation research community as a surrogate safety measure for decades. However, due to the rarity of traffic conflicts, collecting large-scale real-world traffic conflict data becomes extremely challenging. In this paper, we introduce and analyze ROCO - a real-world roundabout traffic conflict dataset. The data is collected at a two-lane roundabout at the intersection of State St. and W. Ellsworth Rd. in Ann Arbor, Michigan. We use raw video dataflow captured from four fisheye cameras installed at the roundabout as our input data source. We adopt a learning-based conflict identification algorithm from video to find potential traffic conflicts, and then manually label them for dataset collection and annotation. In total 557 traffic conflicts and 17 traffic crashes are collected from August 2021 to October 2021. We provide trajectory data of the traffic conflict scenes extracted using our roadside perception system. Taxonomy based on traffic conflict severity, reason for the traffic conflict, and its effect on the traffic flow is provided. With the traffic conflict data collected, we discover that failure to yield to circulating vehicl
Natural Language Processing (NLP) of news articles can play an important role in understanding the dynamics and causes of violent conflict. Despite the availability of datasets categorizing various conflict events, the existing labels often do not cover all of the fine-grained violent conflict event types relevant to areas like the Horn of Africa. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark dataset Conflict Events in the Horn of Africa region (CEHA) and propose a new task for identifying violent conflict events using online resources with this dataset. The dataset consists of 500 English event descriptions regarding conflict events in the Horn of Africa region with fine-grained event-type definitions that emphasize the cause of the conflict. This dataset categorizes the key types of conflict risk according to specific areas required by stakeholders in the Humanitarian-Peace-Development Nexus. Additionally, we conduct extensive experiments on two tasks supported by this dataset: Event-relevance Classification and Event-type Classification. Our baseline models demonstrate the challenging nature of these tasks and the usefulness of our dataset for model evaluations in low-resource set
Open RAN (O-RAN) fosters multi-vendor interoperability and data-driven control but simultaneously introduces the challenge of coordinating pre-trained xApps that may produce conflicting actions. Although O-RAN specifications mandate offline training and validation to prevent the deployment of untrained or inadequately tested models, operational conflicts can still arise under dynamic and context-dependent conditions.This work proposes a scheduler-based conflict mitigation framework to address these challenges without requiring training xApps together or further xApp re-training. By examining an indirect conflict involving power and resource block allocation xApps and employing an Advantage Actor-Critic (A2C) approach to train both xApps and the scheduler, we illustrate that a straightforward A2C-based scheduler improves performance relative to independently deployed xApps and conflicting cases. Notably, among all tested deployment scenarios (including individual xApp deployment, multiple conflicting xApps, and limited scheduler configurations), augmenting the system with baseline xApps and enabling the scheduler to select from a broader pool achieves the highest total transmission
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities for capturing and reasoning over multimodal inputs. However, these models are prone to parametric knowledge conflicts, which arise from inconsistencies of represented knowledge between their vision and language components. In this paper, we formally define the problem of $\textbf{cross-modality parametric knowledge conflict}$ and present a systematic approach to detect, interpret, and mitigate them. We introduce a pipeline that identifies conflicts between visual and textual answers, showing a persistently high conflict rate across modalities in recent LVLMs regardless of the model size. We further investigate how these conflicts interfere with the inference process and propose a contrastive metric to discern the conflicting samples from the others. Building on these insights, we develop a novel dynamic contrastive decoding method that removes undesirable logits inferred from the less confident modality components based on answer confidence. For models that do not provide logits, we also introduce two prompt-based strategies to mitigate the conflicts. Our methods achieve promising improvements in accurac
We study the severity of conflict-related violence in Colombia at an unprecedented granular scale in space and across time. Splitting the data into different geographical regions and different historically-relevant eras, we uncover variations in the patterns of conflict severity which we then explain in terms of local conflict actors' different collective behaviors and/or conditions using a simple mathematical model of conflict actors' grouping dynamics (coalescence and fragmentation). Specifically, variations in the approximate scaling values of the distributions of event lethalities can be explained by the changing strength ratio of the local conflict actors for distinct conflict periods and organizational regions. In this way, our findings open the door to a new granular spectroscopy of human conflicts in terms of local conflict actor strength ratios for any armed conflict.
Trisecting agents, issues, and agent pairs are essential topics of three-way conflict analysis. They have been commonly studied based on either a rating or an auxiliary function. A rating function defines the positive, negative, or neutral ratings of agents on issues. An auxiliary function defines the alliance, conflict, and neutrality relations between agents. These functions measure two opposite aspects in a single function, leading to challenges in interpreting their aggregations over a group of issues or agents. For example, when studying agent relations regarding a set of issues, a standard aggregation takes the average of an auxiliary function concerning single issues. Therefore, a pair of alliance +1 and conflict -1 relations will produce the same result as a pair of neutrality 0 relations, although the attitudes represented by the two pairs are very different. To clarify semantics, we separate the two opposite aspects in an auxiliary function into a pair of alliance and conflict functions. Accordingly, we trisect the agents, issues, and agent pairs and investigate their applications in solving a few crucial questions in conflict analysis. Particularly, we explore the concep
AI models are already deployed in societies affected by armed conflict, and journalists, humanitarian workers, governments and ordinary citizens rely on them for information or for their work processes. No established practice exists for checking whether their outputs can make those conflicts worse. We tested nine model configurations from four providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek, xAI) on 90 multi-turn scenarios designed to surface misaligned behaviour in conflict contexts: false equivalence between documented atrocities, denial of genocide, and failure to recognise ethnic slurs, among others. When such outputs feed into journalism, humanitarian reporting, or public debate, they can deepen divisions in fragile societies. Failure rates span 6\% to 47\% between the best and worst performing models, which makes model choice a safety question in its own right and when users pushed for ``balance'' in cases where international courts have already assigned responsibility, five of nine configurations failed 80 to 100 percent of the time. We release the first evaluation framework for this domain and propose adding it to alignment evaluation portfolios.
We propose a method to predict toxicity and other textual attributes through the use of natural language processing (NLP) techniques for two recent events: the Ukraine-Russia and Hamas-Israel conflicts. This article provides a basis for exploration in future conflicts with hopes to mitigate risk through the analysis of social media before and after a conflict begins. Our work compiles several datasets from Twitter and Reddit for both conflicts in a before and after separation with an aim of predicting a future state of social media for avoidance. More specifically, we show that: (1) there is a noticeable difference in social media discussion leading up to and following a conflict and (2) social media discourse on platforms like Twitter and Reddit is useful in identifying future conflicts before they arise. Our results show that through the use of advanced NLP techniques (both supervised and unsupervised) toxicity and other attributes about language before and after a conflict is predictable with a low error of nearly 1.2 percent for both conflicts.
The advent of Open Radio Access Network (RAN) has revolutionized the field of RAN by introducing elements of native support of intelligence and openness into the next generation of mobile network infrastructure. Open RAN paves the way for standardized interfaces and enables the integration of network applications from diverse vendors, thereby enhancing network management flexibility. However, control decision conflicts occur when components from different vendors are deployed together. This article provides an overview of various types of conflicts that may occur in Open RAN, with a particular focus on intra-component conflict mitigation among Extended Applications (xApps) in the Near Real Time RAN Intelligent Controller (Near-RT-RIC). A QoS-Aware Conflict Mitigation (QACM) method is proposed that finds the optimal configuration of conflicting parameters while maximizing the number of xApps that have their Quality of Service (QoS) requirements met. We compare the performance of the proposed QACM method with two benchmark methods for priority and non-priority cases. The results indicate that our proposed method is the most effective in maintaining QoS requirements for conflicting xA