Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consulted as sources of historical information, yet their handling of contested events and politically charged narratives remains understudied. We introduce HistoricalMisinfo, a dataset of 500 contested events from 45 countries, each paired with a factual and a documented revisionist reference narrative, instantiated across 11 prompt scenarios reflecting common real-world usage. Using an LLM-as-a-judge protocol, we evaluate multiple model architectures under neutral prompts and robustness prompts that explicitly request revisionist content. Under neutral prompts, models generally align with factual references, though alignment varies by scenario and model. Robustness prompting reveals a consistent and sharp increase in revisionism scores across all models, indicating limited resistance to user-driven revisionist framing. HistoricalMisinfo offers a practical benchmark for evaluating robustness to historical revisionism in AI systems.

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly combine visual and textual information to perform complex tasks. However, conflicts between their internal knowledge and external visual input can lead to hallucinations and unreliable predictions. In this work, we investigate the mechanisms that VLMs use to resolve cross-modal conflicts by introducing WHOOPS-AHA!, a dataset of multimodal counterfactual queries that deliberately contradict internal commonsense knowledge. Through logit inspection, we identify a small set of attention heads that mediate this conflict. By intervening in these heads, we can steer the model towards its internal parametric knowledge or the visual information. Our results show that attention patterns on these heads effectively locate image regions that influence visual overrides, providing a more precise attribution compared to gradient-based methods.

Interpretability research aims to bridge the gap between the empirical success and our scientific understanding of the inner workings of large language models (LLMs). However, most existing research in this area focused on analyzing a single mechanism, such as how models copy or recall factual knowledge. In this work, we propose the formulation of competition of mechanisms, which instead of individual mechanisms focuses on the interplay of multiple mechanisms, and traces how one of them becomes dominant in the final prediction. We uncover how and where the competition of mechanisms happens within LLMs using two interpretability methods, logit inspection and attention modification. Our findings show traces of the mechanisms and their competition across various model components, and reveal attention positions that effectively control the strength of certain mechanisms.