"Flex Tape Can't Fix That": Bias and Misinformation in Edited Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00180v3
• Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 19:30:33 GMT
• Title: "Flex Tape Can't Fix That": Bias and Misinformation in Edited Language Models
• Authors: Karina Halevy, Anna Sotnikova, Badr AlKhamissi, Syrielle Montariol, Antoine Bosselut,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how model editing methods unexpectedly amplify model biases post-edit. Specifically, we focus on biases with respect to demographic attributes such as race, geographic origin, and gender. We find that edited models exhibit, to various degrees, more biased behavior as they become less confident in attributes for Asian, African, and South American subjects.
• Score: 17.77377809345631
• License:
• Abstract: Model editing has emerged as a cost-effective strategy to update knowledge stored in language models. However, model editing can have unintended consequences after edits are applied: information unrelated to the edits can also be changed, and other general behaviors of the model can be wrongly altered. In this work, we investigate how model editing methods unexpectedly amplify model biases post-edit. We introduce a novel benchmark dataset, Seesaw-CF, for measuring bias-related harms of model editing and conduct the first in-depth investigation of how different weight-editing methods impact model bias. Specifically, we focus on biases with respect to demographic attributes such as race, geographic origin, and gender, as well as qualitative flaws in long-form texts generated by edited language models. We find that edited models exhibit, to various degrees, more biased behavior as they become less confident in attributes for Asian, African, and South American subjects. Furthermore, edited models amplify sexism and xenophobia in text generations while remaining seemingly coherent and logical. Finally, editing facts about place of birth, country of citizenship, or gender have particularly negative effects on the model's knowledge about unrelated features like field of work.

Related papers

• Should We Really Edit Language Models? On the Evaluation of Edited Language Models [15.63231238452797]
  Existing editing methods lead to inevitable performance deterioration on general benchmarks. Instruction-tuned models are more robust to editing, showing less performance drop on general knowledge after editing. Our findings indicate that current editing methods are only suitable for small-scale knowledge updates within language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T14:36:48Z)
• Better Call SAUL: Fluent and Consistent Language Model Editing with Generation Regularization [48.07144492109635]
  Large language models need to be updated regularly. Model editing is challenging as it might also affect knowledge that is unrelated to the new data. We propose SAUL, a streamlined model editing method that uses sentence concatenation with augmented random facts for generation regularization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T12:28:13Z)
• Fundamental Problems With Model Editing: How Should Rational Belief Revision Work in LLMs? [61.68363765350178]
  This paper critiques the standard formulation of the model editing problem and proposes a formal testbed for model editing research. We first describe 12 open problems with model editing, based on challenges with (1) defining the problem, (2) developing benchmarks, and (3) assuming LLMs have editable beliefs in the first place. Next, we introduce a semi-synthetic dataset for model editing based on Wikidata, where we can evaluate edits against labels given by an idealized Bayesian agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T17:33:03Z)
• Potential and Challenges of Model Editing for Social Debiasing [20.186721346693577]
  Large language models (LLMs) trained on vast corpora suffer from inevitable stereotype biases. Mitigating these biases with fine-tuning could be both costly and data-hungry. Model editing methods, which focus on modifying LLMs in a post-hoc manner, are of great potential to address debiasing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T01:35:26Z)
• The Butterfly Effect of Model Editing: Few Edits Can Trigger Large Language Models Collapse [58.0132400208411]
  Even a single edit can trigger model collapse, manifesting as significant performance degradation in various benchmark tasks. benchmarking Large Language Models after each edit is impractically time-consuming and resource-intensive. We have utilized GPT-3.5 to develop a new dataset, HardEdit, based on hard cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T01:50:38Z)
• Model Editing at Scale leads to Gradual and Catastrophic Forgetting [2.569159339315845]
  We evaluate the current model editing methods at scale, focusing on two state of the art methods: ROME and MEMIT. We find that as the model is edited sequentially with multiple facts, it continually forgets previously edited facts and the ability to perform downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-15T03:57:15Z)
• Model Editing Harms General Abilities of Large Language Models: Regularization to the Rescue [122.20016030723043]
  We evaluate the side effects of model editing on large language models (LLMs) Our analysis reveals that the side effects are caused by model editing altering the original model weights excessively. To mitigate this, a method named RECT is proposed to regularize the edit update weights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T18:03:15Z)
• Does Localization Inform Editing? Surprising Differences in Causality-Based Localization vs. Knowledge Editing in Language Models [68.03946716358335]
  We find that we can change how a fact is stored in a model by editing weights that are in a different location than where existing methods suggest that the fact is stored. This is surprising because we would expect that localizing facts to specific model parameters would tell us where to manipulate knowledge in models. Our results suggest, counterintuitively, that better mechanistic understanding of how pretrained language models work may not always translate to insights about how to best change their behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-10T21:26:08Z)
• Memory-Based Model Editing at Scale [102.28475739907498]
  Existing model editors struggle to accurately model an edit's intended scope. We propose Semi-Parametric Editing with a Retrieval-Augmented Counterfactual Model (SERAC) SERAC stores edits in an explicit memory and learns to reason over them to modulate the base model's predictions as needed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-13T23:40:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.