The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2410.16251 · v3 · pith:BZX4EVYM · submitted 2024-10-21 · cs.CL

Can Knowledge Editing Really Correct Hallucinations?

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:BZX4EVYMrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CL
keywords editingknowledgehallucinationsllmsmethodscorrectcorrectingdifferent
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations, referring to the non-factual information in generated content, despite their superior capacities across tasks. Meanwhile, knowledge editing has been developed as a new popular paradigm to correct erroneous factual knowledge encoded in LLMs with the advantage of avoiding retraining from scratch. However, a common issue of existing evaluation datasets for knowledge editing is that they do not ensure that LLMs actually generate hallucinated answers to the evaluation questions before editing. When LLMs are evaluated on such datasets after being edited by different techniques, it is hard to directly adopt the performance to assess the effectiveness of different knowledge editing methods in correcting hallucinations. Thus, the fundamental question remains insufficiently validated: Can knowledge editing really correct hallucinations in LLMs? We proposed HalluEditBench to holistically benchmark knowledge editing methods in correcting real-world hallucinations. First, we rigorously construct a massive hallucination dataset with 9 domains, 26 topics and more than 6,000 hallucinations. Then, we assess the performance of knowledge editing methods in a holistic way on five dimensions including Efficacy, Generalization, Portability, Locality, and Robustness. Through HalluEditBench, we have provided new insights into the potentials and limitations of different knowledge editing methods in correcting hallucinations, which could inspire future improvements and facilitate progress in the field of knowledge editing.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Exposing the Illusion of Erasure in Knowledge Editing for LLMs

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Knowledge editing methods redistribute and suppress rather than overwrite facts in LLMs, creating narrow vulnerable regions in representation space that adversarial prompts can exploit.

  2. Correct When Paired, Wrong When Split: Decoupling and Editing Modality-Specific Neurons in MLLMs

    cs.LG 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    DECODE identifies and separately edits modality-specific neurons in MLLMs to prevent knowledge edits from reverting under unimodal queries.

  3. Distributed Multi-Layer Editing for Rule-Level Knowledge in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Rule knowledge in LLMs is localized by form across layers; a distributed multi-layer editing method improves instance portability by 13.91 and rule understanding by 50.19 percentage points over baselines on multiple models.

  4. Neuro-Symbolic Verification of LLM Outputs for Data-Sensitive Domains (extended preprint)

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Neuro-symbolic pipeline using formal logic and semantic embeddings detects hallucinations in LLM medical reports at 83%+ for entities and 72% for fabrications while cutting creation time 30%.