Should We Really Edit Language Models? On the Evaluation of Edited Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18785v1
• Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:36:48 GMT
• Title: Should We Really Edit Language Models? On the Evaluation of Edited Language Models
• Authors: Qi Li, Xiang Liu, Zhenheng Tang, Peijie Dong, Zeyu Li, Xinglin Pan, Xiaowen Chu,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 15.63231238452797
• License:
• Abstract: Model editing has become an increasingly popular alternative for efficiently updating knowledge within language models. Current methods mainly focus on reliability, generalization, and locality, with many methods excelling across these criteria. Some recent works disclose the pitfalls of these editing methods such as knowledge distortion or conflict. However, the general abilities of post-edited language models remain unexplored. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive evaluation on various editing methods and different language models, and have following findings. (1) Existing editing methods lead to inevitable performance deterioration on general benchmarks, indicating that existing editing methods maintain the general abilities of the model within only a few dozen edits. When the number of edits is slightly large, the intrinsic knowledge structure of the model is disrupted or even completely damaged. (2) Instruction-tuned models are more robust to editing, showing less performance drop on general knowledge after editing. (3) Language model with large scale is more resistant to editing compared to small model. (4) The safety of the edited model, is significantly weakened, even for those safety-aligned models. Our findings indicate that current editing methods are only suitable for small-scale knowledge updates within language models, which motivates further research on more practical and reliable editing methods. The details of code and reproduction can be found in https://github.com/lqinfdim/EditingEvaluation.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• DUnE: Dataset for Unified Editing [3.7346004746366384]
  We introduce DUnE-an editing benchmark where edits are natural language sentences. We show that retrieval-augmented language modeling can outperform specialized editing techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T18:56:14Z)
• Edit at your own risk: evaluating the robustness of edited models to distribution shifts [0.0]
  We investigate how model editing affects the general robustness of a model, as well as the robustness of the specific behavior targeted by the edit. We find that edits tend to reduce general robustness, but that the degree of degradation depends on the editing algorithm and layers chosen. Motivated by these observations we introduce a new model editing algorithm, 1-layer (1-LI), which uses weight-space to navigate the trade-off between editing task accuracy and general robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-28T19:41:37Z)
• Aging with GRACE: Lifelong Model Editing with Discrete Key-Value Adaptors [53.819805242367345]
  We propose GRACE, a lifelong model editing method, which implements spot-fixes on streaming errors of a deployed model. GRACE writes new mappings into a pre-trained model's latent space, creating a discrete, local codebook of edits without altering model weights. Our experiments on T5, BERT, and GPT models show GRACE's state-of-the-art performance in making and retaining edits, while generalizing to unseen inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-20T17:18:22Z)
• 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.