How Well Can Knowledge Edit Methods Edit Perplexing Knowledge?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17253v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 03:41:02 GMT
• Title: How Well Can Knowledge Edit Methods Edit Perplexing Knowledge?
• Authors: Huaizhi Ge, Frank Rudzicz, Zining Zhu,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the capability of knowledge editing methods to incorporate new knowledge with varying degrees of "perplexingness" We find significant negative correlations between the "perplexingness" of the new knowledge and the edit efficacy across all 12 scenarios. Further exploration into the influence of knowledge hierarchy on editing outcomes indicates that knowledge positioned at higher hierarchical levels is more challenging to modify in some scenarios.
• Score: 18.022428746019582
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed, targeted editing of their knowledge has become a critical challenge. Recently, advancements in model editing techniques, such as Rank-One Model Editing (ROME), have paved the way for updating LLMs with new knowledge. However, the efficacy of these methods varies across different types of knowledge. This study investigates the capability of knowledge editing methods to incorporate new knowledge with varying degrees of "perplexingness", a term we use to describe the initial difficulty LLMs have in understanding new concepts. We begin by quantifying the "perplexingness" of target knowledge using pre-edit conditional probabilities, and assess the efficacy of edits through post-edit conditional probabilities. Utilizing the widely-used CounterFact dataset, we find significant negative correlations between the "perplexingness" of the new knowledge and the edit efficacy across all 12 scenarios. To dive deeper into this phenomenon, we introduce a novel dataset, HierarchyData, consisting of 99 hyponym-hypernym pairs across diverse categories. Our analysis reveal that more abstract concepts (hypernyms) tend to be more perplexing than their specific counterparts (hyponyms). Further exploration into the influence of knowledge hierarchy on editing outcomes indicates that knowledge positioned at higher hierarchical levels is more challenging to modify in some scenarios. Our research highlights a previously overlooked aspect of LLM editing: the variable efficacy of editing methods in handling perplexing knowledge. By revealing how hierarchical relationships can influence editing outcomes, our findings offer new insights into the challenges of updating LLMs and pave the way for more nuanced approaches to model editing in the future.

Related papers

• Uncovering Overfitting in Large Language Model Editing [35.55260822503773]
  We identify and investigate the phenomenon of Editing Overfit, where edited models assign disproportionately high probabilities to the edit target. We propose a new plug-and-play strategy called Learn to Inference (LTI), which introduce a Multi-stage Inference Constraint module to guide the edited models in recalling new knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T11:09:00Z)
• Editing the Mind of Giants: An In-Depth Exploration of Pitfalls of Knowledge Editing in Large Language Models [26.516571783335824]
  Recent studies have identified side effects, such as knowledge distortion and the deterioration of general abilities, that have emerged after editing. This survey presents a comprehensive study of these side effects, providing a unified perspective on the challenges of knowledge editing in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T15:28:21Z)
• Editing Conceptual Knowledge for Large Language Models [65.38231526537476]
  This paper pioneers the investigation of editing conceptual knowledge for Large Language Models (LLMs) We construct a novel benchmark dataset ConceptEdit and establish a suite of new metrics for evaluation. experimental results reveal that, although existing editing methods can efficiently modify concept-level definition to some extent, they also have the potential to distort the related instantial knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-10T16:57:10Z)
• Editing Factual Knowledge and Explanatory Ability of Medical Large Language Models [89.13883089162951]
  Model editing aims to precisely alter the behaviors of large language models (LLMs) in relation to specific knowledge. This approach has proven effective in addressing issues of hallucination and outdated information in LLMs. However, the potential of using model editing to modify knowledge in the medical field remains largely unexplored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T06:40:57Z)
• Learning to Edit: Aligning LLMs with Knowledge Editing [101.96620267293731]
  We propose a Learning to Edit (LTE) framework, focusing on teaching large language models to apply updated knowledge into input questions. LTE features a two-phase process: (i) the Alignment Phase, which fine-tunes LLMs on a meticulously curated parallel dataset to make reliable, in-scope edits. We demonstrate LTE's superiority in knowledge editing performance, robustness in both batch and sequential editing, minimal interference on general tasks, and rapid editing speeds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T07:45:17Z)
• A Comprehensive Study of Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models [82.65729336401027]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown extraordinary capabilities in understanding and generating text that closely mirrors human communication. This paper defines the knowledge editing problem and provides a comprehensive review of cutting-edge approaches. We introduce a new benchmark, KnowEdit, for a comprehensive empirical evaluation of representative knowledge editing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T16:54:58Z)
• Unveiling the Pitfalls of Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models [41.83423510576848]
  It is still unclear whether knowledge editing might introduce side effects that pose potential risks or not. This paper pioneers the investigation into the potential pitfalls associated with knowledge editing for Large Language Models. Experimental results vividly demonstrate that knowledge editing might inadvertently cast a shadow of unintended consequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T15:10:46Z)
• Eva-KELLM: A New Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Editing of LLMs [54.22416829200613]
  Eva-KELLM is a new benchmark for evaluating knowledge editing of large language models. Experimental results indicate that the current methods for knowledge editing using raw documents are not effective in yielding satisfactory results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-19T09:17:19Z)
• Editing Large Language Models: Problems, Methods, and Opportunities [51.903537096207]
  This paper embarks on a deep exploration of the problems, methods, and opportunities related to model editing for LLMs. We provide an exhaustive overview of the task definition and challenges associated with model editing, along with an in-depth empirical analysis of the most progressive methods currently at our disposal. Our objective is to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and feasibility of each editing technique, thereby assisting the community in making informed decisions on the selection of the most appropriate method for a specific task or context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T16:00:00Z)

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.