# Three Regimes of Context-Parametric Conflict: A Predictive Framework and Empirical Validation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11574 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11574/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [Entity-Based Knowledge Conflicts in Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05052/) (2021)
- [Adaptive Chameleon or Stubborn Sloth: Revealing the Behavior of Large Language Models in Knowledge Conflicts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13300/) (2023)
- [Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08319/) (2024)
- [Rich Knowledge Sources Bring Complex Knowledge Conflicts: Recalibrating Models to Reflect Conflicting Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13701/) (2022)
- [ReDeEP: Detecting Hallucination in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Mechanistic Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11414/) (2024)
- [Cutting Off the Head Ends the Conflict: A Mechanism for Interpreting and Mitigating Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18154/) (2024)
- [DYNAMICQA: Tracing Internal Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.17023/) (2024)
- [Taming Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10996/) (2025)
- [Context versus Prior Knowledge in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04633/) (2024)
- [Task Matters: Knowledge Requirements Shape LLM Responses to Context-Memory Conflict](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06485/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [TOKI: A Bitemporal Operator Algebra for Contradiction Resolution in LLM-Agent Persistent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06240/) (2026)
- [The Memory Trust Gap: Capability-Dependent Failures in Persistent-Memory Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01852/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The literature on how large language models handle conflict between their training knowledge and a contradicting document presents a persistent empirical contradiction: some studies find models stubbornly retain their trained answers, ignoring provided documents nearly half the time, while others find models readily defer to the document, following context approximately 96% of the time. We argue these contradictions dissolve once one recognises that prior experiments have studied three qualitatively distinct processing situations without distinguishing them. We propose a three-regime framework: Regime 1 (single-source updating, dominant predictor: evidence coherence), Regime 2 (competitive integration, dominant predictor: parametric certainty), and Regime 3 (task-appropriate selection, dominant predictor: task knowledge requirement). We formalise a distinction between parametric strength (exposure frequency) and parametric uniqueness (encoding consistency), showing empirically that these are orthogonal dimensions (r = -0.002, p = .97) with strength as the operative predictor in stable factual domains. We validate the framework across Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Llama 4 Maverick, and DeepSeek V3 using 9,970 API calls in three experimental phases. GEE logistic regression confirms the predicted Regime 2 certainty gradient for all five models (beta = -0.38 to -0.50, all p <= .013, BH-FDR corrected). A Regime 3 ablation shows task framing alone flips context-following from near-100% (contextual knowledge condition) to 6-71% (parametric knowledge condition), with all five models significant (p < .001). The certainty gradient is robust to multinomial outcome modeling, sensitivity analyses for hedging responses, and FDR correction.