Is Model Editing Built on Sand? Revealing Its Illusory Success and Fragile Foundation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.00625v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 07:59:23 GMT
• Title: Is Model Editing Built on Sand? Revealing Its Illusory Success and Fragile Foundation
• Authors: Wei Liu, Haomei Xu, Bingqing Liu, Zhiying Deng, Haozhao Wang, Jun Wang, Ruixuan Li, Yee Whye Teh, Wee Sun Lee,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) inevitably encode outdated or incorrect knowledge. Updating, deleting, and forgetting such knowledge is important for alignment, safety, and other issues.<n>To address this issue, model editing has emerged as a promising paradigm: by precisely editing a small subset of parameters such that a specific fact is updated while preserving other knowledge.<n>Despite its great success reported in previous papers, we find the apparent reliability of editing rests on a fragile foundation.<n>Our empirical evidence shows that editing is likely to be based on shortcuts rather than full semantics, calling for an urgent reconsideration of the very basis of model editing before further advancements can
• Score: 50.40861036534546
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) inevitably encode outdated or incorrect knowledge. Updating, deleting, and forgetting such knowledge is important for alignment, safety, and other issues. To address this issue, model editing has emerged as a promising paradigm: by precisely editing a small subset of parameters such that a specific fact is updated while preserving other knowledge. Despite its great success reported in previous papers, we find the apparent reliability of editing rests on a fragile foundation and the current literature is largely driven by illusory success. The fundamental goal of steering the model's output toward a target with minimal modification would encourage exploiting hidden shortcuts, rather than utilizing real semantics. This problem directly challenges the feasibility of the current model editing literature at its very foundation, as shortcuts are inherently at odds with robust knowledge integration. Coincidentally, this issue has long been obscured by evaluation frameworks that lack the design of negative examples. To uncover it, we systematically develop a suite of new evaluation methods. Strikingly, we find that state-of-the-art approaches collapse even under the simplest negation queries. Our empirical evidence shows that editing is likely to be based on shortcuts rather than full semantics, calling for an urgent reconsideration of the very basis of model editing before further advancements can be meaningfully pursued.

Related papers

• The Mirage of Model Editing: Revisiting Evaluation in the Wild [70.17413507444704]
  We introduce QAEdit, a new benchmark aligned with widely used question answering (QA) datasets, and WILD, a task-agnostic evaluation framework.<n>Our single editing experiments show that current editing methods perform substantially worse than previously reported.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:57:55Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Stealth edits to large language models [76.53356051271014]
  We show that a single metric can be used to assess a model's editability. We also reveal the vulnerability of language models to stealth attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T14:43:18Z)
• EVEDIT: Event-based Knowledge Editing with Deductive Editing Boundaries [69.72012539060731]
  We introduce a theoretical framework for efficient knowledge editing (KE) in large language models (LLMs) We propose a novel task of event-based knowledge editing that pairs facts with event descriptions. We empirically demonstrate the superiority of event-based editing over the existing setting on resolving uncertainty in edited models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T16:34:50Z)
• 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)
• Propagation and Pitfalls: Reasoning-based Assessment of Knowledge Editing through Counterfactual Tasks [36.292901021210575]
  We introduce a novel reasoning-based benchmark -- ReCoE (Reasoning-based Counterfactual Editing dataset) We conduct a thorough analysis of existing knowledge editing techniques, including input augmentation, finetuning, and locate-and-edit. All model editing methods show notably low performance on this dataset, especially in certain reasoning schemes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T04:12:59Z)
• 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)
• 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.