Revisiting Parameter-Based Knowledge Editing in Large Language Models: Theoretical Limits and Empirical Evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00570v1
• Date: Sat, 30 May 2026 06:44:40 GMT
• Title: Revisiting Parameter-Based Knowledge Editing in Large Language Models: Theoretical Limits and Empirical Evidence
• Abstract summary: We present a theoretical analysis based on the dimensional Collapse Hypothesis, explaining how localized parameter edits can propagate along fragile directions in the representation space.<n>We then conduct a comprehensive empirical evaluation by systematically varying knowledge complexity, number of edits, evaluation dimensions, and baseline methods.
• Score: 30.723839652218487
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Parameter-based knowledge editing updates the internal knowledge of large language models (LLMs) via localized weight modifications and has attracted significant attention. However, most existing methods overlook fundamental theoretical limitations and are rarely evaluated under realistic, practice-oriented settings. In this paper, we first present a theoretical analysis based on the dimensional Collapse Hypothesis, explaining how localized parameter edits can propagate along fragile directions in the representation space, inducing global interference and ultimately causing reasoning collapse. Building on this insight, we conduct a comprehensive empirical evaluation by systematically varying knowledge complexity, number of edits, evaluation dimensions, and baseline methods. Our results show that parameter-based editing methods consistently damage core LLM capabilities. In contrast, a simple retrieval-based baseline achieves consistently stronger performance than all parameter-editing methods across all evaluated conditions. These findings highlight that preserving the fundamental capabilities of LLMs after knowledge editing should be a central concern for future research.

Related papers

• Are We Evaluating the Edit Locality of LLM Model Editing Properly? [68.441768731381]
  We find that existing specificity evaluation protocols are inadequate for this purpose.<n>Existing specificity metrics are weakly correlated with the strength of specificity regularizers.<n>We also find that current metrics lack sufficient sensitivity, rendering them ineffective at distinguishing the specificity performance of different methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T07:07:21Z)
• EtCon: Edit-then-Consolidate for Reliable Knowledge Editing [85.20993502078899]
  We propose Edit-then-Consolidate, a novel knowledge editing paradigm that aims to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge editing methods and their real-world applicability.<n>Our framework consistently improves editing reliability and generalization under real-world evaluations, while better preserving locality and pre-trained capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T12:43:50Z)
• Part I: Tricks or Traps? A Deep Dive into RL for LLM Reasoning [53.85659415230589]
  This paper systematically reviews widely adoptedReinforcement learning techniques.<n>We present clear guidelines for selecting RL techniques tailored to specific setups.<n>We also reveal that a minimalist combination of two techniques can unlock the learning capability of critic-free policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T17:39:45Z)
• Benchmarking and Rethinking Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models [34.80161437154527]
  Knowledge editing aims to update embedded knowledge within Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Existing approaches, whether through parameter modification or external memory integration, often suffer from inconsistent evaluation objectives and experimental setups.<n>This study offers new insights into the limitations of current knowledge editing methods and highlights the potential of context-based reasoning as a more robust alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T13:32:03Z)
• Knowledge Updating? No More Model Editing! Just Selective Contextual Reasoning [38.018263569983226]
  We provide an evaluation of ten model editing methods along four dimensions: reliability, generalization, locality, and portability.<n>We then propose a straightforward method called Selective Contextual Reasoning (SCR) for knowledge updating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T08:04:25Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.