Large language models (LLMs) have an impressive ability to draw on novel information supplied in their context. Yet the mechanisms underlying this contextual grounding remain unknown, especially in situations where contextual information contradicts factual knowledge stored in the parameters, which LLMs also excel at recalling. Favoring the contextual information is critical for retrieval-augmented generation methods, which enrich the context with up-to-date information, hoping that grounding can rectify outdated or noisy stored knowledge. We present a novel method to study grounding abilities using Fakepedia, a novel dataset of counterfactual texts constructed to clash with a model’s internal parametric knowledge. In this study, we introduce Fakepedia, a counterfactual dataset designed to evaluate grounding abilities when the internal parametric knowledge clashes with the contextual information. We benchmark various LLMs with Fakepedia and conduct a causal mediation analysis of LLM components when answering Fakepedia queries, based on our Masked Grouped Causal Tracing (MGCT) method. Through this analysis, we identify distinct computational patterns between grounded and ungrounded responses. We finally demonstrate that distinguishing grounded from ungrounded responses is achievable through computational analysis alone. Our results, together with existing findings about factual recall mechanisms, provide a coherent narrative of how grounding and factual recall mechanisms interact within LLMs.

A critical component of a successful language generation pipeline is the decoding algorithm. However, the general principles that should guide the choice of a decoding algorithm remain unclear. Previous works only compare decoding algorithms in narrow scenarios, and their findings do not generalize across tasks. We argue that the misalignment between the model’s likelihood and the task-specific notion of utility is the key factor in understanding the effectiveness of decoding algorithms. To structure the discussion, we introduce a taxonomy of misalignment mitigation strategies (MMSs), providing a unifying view of decoding as a tool for alignment. The MMS taxonomy groups decoding algorithms based on their implicit assumptions about likelihood–utility misalignment, yielding general statements about their applicability across tasks. Specifically, by analyzing the correlation between the likelihood and the utility of predictions across a diverse set of tasks, we provide empirical evidence supporting the proposed taxonomy and a set of principles to structure reasoning when choosing a decoding algorithm. Crucially, our analysis is the first to relate likelihood-based decoding algorithms with algorithms that rely on external information, such as value-guided methods and prompting, and covers the most diverse set of tasks to date. Code, data, and models are available at https://github.com/epfl-dlab/understanding-decoding.

Modern pretrained language models are critical components of NLP pipelines. Yet, they suffer from spurious correlations, poor out-of-domain generalization, and biases.Inspired by recent progress in causal machine learning, in particular the invariant risk minimization (IRM) paradigm, we propose invariant language modeling, a framework for learning invariant representations that generalize better across multiple environments. In particular, we adapt a game-theoretic implementation of IRM (IRM-games) to language models, where the invariance emerges from a specific training schedule in which all the environments compete to optimize their own environment-specific loss by updating subsets of the model in a round-robin fashion.We focused on controlled experiments to precisely demonstrate the ability of our method to (i) remove structured noise, (ii) ignore specific spurious correlations without affecting global performance, and (iii) achieve better out-of-domain generalization.These benefits come with a negligible computational overhead compared to standard training, do not require changing the local loss, and can be applied to any language model. We believe this framework is promising to help mitigate spurious correlations and biases in language models.