Sign in

Jakob Schuster

@schusterj.bsky.social
18 followers 49 following 8 posts

PhD Candidate at the Institute of Computational Linguistics in Heidelberg, Germany

PostsRepliesMedia
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 01/04/2026
Sprache in Arbeitszeugnissen
020
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
We will release all code and data in the coming weeks to encourage further research. To read up on all the omitted details, check out the whole paper here: 👉 arxiv.org/pdf/2601.03746 📄 7/7
arxiv.org
001
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
TL;DR: Multiple factors of source credibility influence how LLMs resolve knowledge conflicts, following a consistent, internal credibility hierarchy. But these preferences can be easily overwritten by simple repetition. Fine-tuning can mitigate this vulnerability. 6/7
100
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
To address this, we propose a novel knowledge-distillation training approach that makes models agnostic to repeated information. This reduces repetition bias by up to 99.8%, while retaining up to 88.8% of the original source preference. 5/7
GEMMA3-4B when fine-tuned and prompted
to consider credibility (darker) in comparison to the
original teacher model (lighter). This setup reduces
repetition bias and maintains original preferences.
100
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
By explicitly providing source information, we disentangle whether models truly favor majorities as often reported, or whether they are simply influenced by repeated information. Our findings strongly suggest the latter, leaving models vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. 4/7
Preferences contrasting a majority/repetition
of previously low-credibility sources with a previously
high-credibility authority in three settings. Repeated
information (whether attributed to a single source or
two different ones) flips prior rankings. Similarly when conflicting a low-credibility majority with a high-credible minority, most models flip prior rankings only when information is also repeated in the majority (2 Table Maj.).

We investigate QWEN2.5 (orange)
7B ■, 14B ▲, 32B ✚, 72B *,
OLMO-2 (green) 7B ■, 13B ▲, 32B ✚, LLAMA-3.2 3B •, LLAMA-3.1 8B ■, 70B * (blue), and GEMMA-3 (red)
4B •, 12B ▲, 27B ✚.
100
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
When comparing different source types, we find that source information significantly affects conflict resolution, with models following a highly consistent source credibility hierarchy: institutional sources (government, newspaper) over individual ones (person, social media user). 3/7
Model preferences between source types under knowledge conflicts: LLMs show strictly transitive
preferences, aligning with an overall hierarchy of government > newspaper > individuals.

We investigate QWEN2.5 (orange)
7B ■, 14B ▲, 32B ✚, 72B *,
OLMO-2 (green) 7B ■, 13B ▲, 32B ✚, LLAMA-3.2 3B •, LLAMA-3.1 8B ■, 70B * (blue), and GEMMA-3 (red)
4B •, 12B ▲, 27B ✚.
120
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
We evaluate 13 models from 4 model families on fully synthetic conflicts and sources and measure shifts in answer probabilities when conflicting answers are attributed to different sources, all grounded in interdisciplinary frameworks. 2/7
100
Jakob Schuster @schusterj.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
Excited to share the first preprint of my PhD! While many papers focus on what kind of information LLMs trust, @dippedrusk.com, Katja Markert, and I instead investigate whose evidence models prefer by looking at source credibility. #NLP #Research #CL #LLMs 1/7 🧵
“Whose Facts Win? LLM Source Preference under Knowledge Conflicts”
Authors: Jakob Schuster, Vagrant Gautam, Katja Markert
 
Source credibility hierarchy of Government > Newspaper > Person, Social Media induced by evaluating 13 LLMs on source and knowledge conflicts. However, repeating information can flip preferences.
131