REVIEW 3 cited by
Unveiling the Pitfalls of Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
As the cost associated with fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to rise, recent research efforts have pivoted towards developing methodologies to edit implicit knowledge embedded within LLMs. Yet, there's still a dark cloud lingering overhead -- will knowledge editing trigger butterfly effect? since 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 LLMs. To achieve this, we introduce new benchmark datasets and propose innovative evaluation metrics. Our results underline two pivotal concerns: (1) Knowledge Conflict: Editing groups of facts that logically clash can magnify the inherent inconsistencies in LLMs-a facet neglected by previous methods. (2) Knowledge Distortion: Altering parameters with the aim of editing factual knowledge can irrevocably warp the innate knowledge structure of LLMs. Experimental results vividly demonstrate that knowledge editing might inadvertently cast a shadow of unintended consequences on LLMs, which warrant attention and efforts for future works. Code and data are available at https://github.com/zjunlp/PitfallsKnowledgeEditing.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
A Taxonomy of Cognitive Capability Gaps in Generative and Agentic AI
The paper organizes persistent AI limitations into a five-part taxonomy of cognitive capability gaps and proposes a conceptual ACIA architecture and cognition-centric metrics, none of which are validated.
-
In Praise of Stubbornness: An Empirical Case for Cognitive-Dissonance Aware Continual Update of Knowledge in LLMs
Fine-tuning LLMs on contradictory facts catastrophically corrupts unrelated knowledge, undeterred by selective neuron updates, while non-contradictory updates remain safe.
-
A Survey on Proactive Defense Strategies Against Misinformation in Large Language Models
A survey claims proactive defenses against LLM misinformation outperform post-hoc detection by up to 63%, but no meta-analysis details are provided to support the claim.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.