Disentangling Reasoning Logic to Resolve Explicit Knowledge Conflicts

AbstractExplicit knowledge conflicts, where retrieved contexts contain contradictory information, have become increasingly prevalent as Large Language Models (LLMs) integrate diverse data sources. The core challenge lies in the complexity of entangled narratives and the heterogeneity of conflict cases, which impose excessive demands on the reasoning capabilities of standard models. To address this, we propose Knowledge Conflict Reasoning (KCR), a framework that adjudicates conflicts by structuring the underlying logic. KCR first disentangles conflicting contexts into distinct sets of reasoning traces, utilizing both textual and graph-based representations, to simplify comprehension. It then employs a Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) paradigm, guiding the model to internalize a reasoning process that maximizes logical consistency while actively suppressing spurious reasoning paths derived from contradictory contexts. Extensive experiments demonstrate that KCR yields substantial improvements: a KCR-enhanced 7B model surpasses the performance of baselines equipped with top-tier closed-source models such as GPT-4o and GPT-5.1.