Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

PropMEND: Hypernetworks for Knowledge Propagation in LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a hypernetwork meta-trained to transform gradients of a language-modeling loss can make edited LLMs answer multi-hop questions that rely on newly injected knowledge, roughly doubling accuracy on non-verbatim…

desk verdict Solid meta-learning extension of MEND with honest OOD analysis, but the propagation claim is much weaker when Prepend is included in the comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08920 v1 pith:ALVOXKKJ submitted 2025-06-10 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Zeyu Leo Liu , Greg Durrett , Eunsol Choi This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords knowledgeeditingpropagationhypernetworkmulti-hopquestionansweringmodelmeta-learningout-of-domaingeneralizationRippleEdit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Knowledge editing in large language models commonly fails at propagation: the model can repeat a newly injected fact verbatim but cannot answer questions that require reasoning with it. PropMEND claims this failure can be repaired by meta-training a hypernetwork whose job is to transform the gradient of a language-modeling loss on the injected fact into a weight update that makes propagation questions answerable. On the RippleEdit benchmark, this objective roughly doubles accuracy on non-verbatim multi-hop questions, reaching 22.4% versus 12.7% for the next best system. The paper also introduces Controlled RippleEdit, a synthetic benchmark built on well-known entities and relations, to measure out-of-domain generalization; the method beats all baselines there but degrades substantially when both entities and relations are unseen.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a hypernetwork $g_{\phi}$ applied to the rank-1 decomposition of the gradient of a language-modeling loss, following MEND's observation that such gradients factor as $\delta u^\top$. PropMEND changes what the hypernetwork is optimized for: the edited model $\tilde{W}$ is scored by its log-likelihood on propagation questions $-\frac{1}{P}\sum_i \log p_{\tilde{W}}(a_i | q_i)$, while the inner-loop gradient comes from the causal LM loss on the fact text $f$. This separates the injection signal (any text) from the training signal (multi-hop usefulness) and is what allows a single gradient edit to support answering questions whose answer is not stated in the fact.

What would settle it

Train PropMEND with a held-out relation type, for example no question involving capital_of anywhere in the meta-training set, and evaluate only on propagation questions requiring that relation with familiar entities; if accuracy is statistically indistinguishable from the base model, the claim that the hypernetwork learns a general propagation mechanism rather than memorizing relation-specific templates is refuted. The paper's OOD(Relation) condition keeps the relation template visible in training, so it is not a clean test of this premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PropMEND's central claim is that a hypernetwork trained with an outer-loop loss over propagation questions, rather than over paraphrases of the edited fact as in MEND, learns to convert a gradient computed on new knowledge into weight changes that support multi-hop reasoning with that knowledge. The inner loop computes a causal language-modeling gradient on the full text of the injected fact, and the outer loop optimizes the probability of correct answers to propagation questions under the updated model. Applied to Llama-3.2-1B on RippleEdit, this configuration is the only method among those tested that shows substantial gain on questions whose answers do not appear verbatim in the injected fact, while remaining competitive on specificity questions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the propagation questions used to meta-train the hypernetwork are representative of the questions the model will face at test time; the paper's own OOD numbers show that when both entities and relations are unseen, efficacy collapses from 64.0% to 17.7%, so the propagation mechanism is largely confined to the training distribution of relation and entity combinations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If PropMEND is right, a single gradient edit can be made to support multi-hop reasoning, so knowledge editing need not be paired with test-time in-context prepending to propagate facts.
  • Because the outer loop operates on any text fact via the causal LM loss, the method extends editing to facts that are not naturally phrased as question-answer pairs, which MEND could not handle.
  • The roughly twofold gain on non-verbatim RippleEdit questions suggests that existing editing benchmarks systematically underreport propagation failure because a large share of their queries are answerable by copying from the injected fact.
  • The Controlled RippleEdit results imply that generalization across entities is easier than generalization across relations, since OOD (Entity) performance (34.7%) exceeds OOD (Relation) (33.3%), and both collapse on OOD (Both) (17.7%).
  • Scaling the hypernetwork and meta-training data drives in-domain efficacy toward ceiling (98.5%) but does not move the hardest out-of-domain condition (17.8%), which indicates the training distribution, not capacity, is the binding constraint.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pattern holds beyond these benchmarks, the practical implication is that knowledge-editing pipelines should meta-train their editors on the same query distribution they will be evaluated on, since off-distribution propagation is at present a proxy for template memorization rather than general reasoning.
  • The similarity between PropMEND's OOD numbers and Prepend's suggests an alternative interpretation: that propagation is mostly achieved by reinstantiation of familiar relation templates, and a stronger test of true reasoning would require relations whose compositional structure is novel.
  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is multi-edit propagation: because the inner loop already consumes a gradient, one could in principle stack several fact gradients before applying the hypernetwork, though the paper reports no such experiments.
  • One could test whether the gain is preserved under paraphrased propagation questions that require lexical inference, since the RippleEdit non-verbatim split still shares template and entity structure with the meta-training set.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PropMEND, a hypernetwork-based knowledge editing method that extends MEND by replacing the paraphrase-matching outer-loop objective with a propagation-question objective (Eq. 2) and by using a causal language modeling loss over the injected fact text in the inner loop. On RippleEdit, PropMEND reports 22.4% LLM-Score on non-verbatim efficacy questions versus 12.7% for the best parametric baseline, and the paper introduces Controlled RippleEdit, a synthetic dataset of multi-hop propagation questions built around well-known entities and relations, with in-domain and OOD (entity, relation, both) test splits. On Controlled RippleEdit, PropMEND achieves 64.0% in-domain efficacy, which drops to 17.7% on OOD (Both).

Significance. The paper has several genuine strengths: the matched comparison against MEND under identical meta-training data and edit layers (Table 1, MEND(Mid-Upper) 8.2 vs PropMEND 22.4 on non-verbatim efficacy; Table 2, 9.1 vs 56.7 in-domain efficacy) is methodologically sound and demonstrates a real improvement over the direct predecessor; the OOD splits of Controlled RippleEdit are an unusually honest stress test; the scaling experiment in Table 4 transparently reports that OOD (Both) performance stays flat even when in-domain performance saturates; and the dataset and code are released. However, the central generalization claim is not supported by the evidence. The outer-loop loss in Eq. (2) optimizes the exact evaluation objective, so the in-domain numbers are partly a fitting artifact, and the OOD results show that the learned update does not transfer to unseen entity-relation combinations, where the non-parametric Prepend baseline beats PropMEND on every OOD efficacy column of Table 2.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §4.3, Table 1] The headline claim of "almost 2x accuracy (22.4% compared to 12.7% of the next best system)" is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1 in the comparison that matters most for a propagation claim: the Prepend baseline achieves the same 22.4% on non-verbatim efficacy queries, and its row carries no dagger, meaning PropMEND does not significantly outperform Prepend on this metric under the paper's own paired bootstrap criterion. The §4.3 sentence "our system is the only one that shows substantial gain (9.2→22.4), while the best other system achieves only 12.7 (MEMIT)" is therefore accurate only if "other system" excludes Prepend, which is exactly the baseline that should anchor a knowledge-propagation claim. The 2x framing should be explicitly restricted to parametric editors, and the statistical tie with Prepend should be stated.
  2. [§3 (Eq. 2), §5.2 (Table 5)] The outer-loop loss in Eq. (2) is computed on propagation questions of the same form as the test-time evaluation, so the in-domain results are partly a fitting artifact: the hypernetwork is meta-trained to maximize likelihood on exactly the task on which it is then evaluated, and both the training and in-domain test instances are sampled from the same distribution of entities and relations. The ablation in Table 5 ("propagations→paraphrases") confirms that this alignment is the single most impactful design choice (in-domain efficacy drops from 56.7 to 10.6), so the in-domain numbers cannot be read as evidence of a learned, generalizable propagation capability. The paper should present the in-domain results as evidence of optimizing the intended objective and treat the OOD splits of Table 2 as the only evidence about generalization; those splits show a large drop (64.0% to 17.7% on OOD (Both)).
  3. [Abstract; §5.2, Table 2] The abstract's sentence "PropMEND still outperforms existing approaches in unseen entity-relation pairs" is true only if "existing approaches" excludes Prepend. In Table 2, Prepend exceeds PropMEND on every OOD efficacy column (59.4 vs 34.7 on OOD (Entity); 58.6 vs 33.3 on OOD (Relation); 51.9 vs 17.7 on OOD (Both)), and none of Prepend's OOD efficacy values carries the dagger marking it as outperformed by PropMEND. Since in-context prepending is precisely the propagation behavior the paper seeks to emulate, this is the most informative comparison available, and the abstract's phrasing needs qualification. I note that the §5.2 discussion is more careful than the abstract, but the abstract's claim as written is misleading.
  4. [§5.2 (Table 4), §7] The scaling experiment is strong internal evidence against the generalization interpretation: increasing the hypernetwork from 163M to 3.4B parameters and the meta-training set from 4K to 30K instances raises in-domain efficacy to 98.5 while OOD (Both) efficacy stays at 17.8. This flatness, despite a 20-fold data increase that effectively saturates the in-domain task, indicates that the learned update does not transfer to unseen entity-relation combinations. The conclusion's statement that "our method maintains strong performance on out-of-domain test sets" should be revised to report the OOD numbers explicitly; 17.7% efficacy against Prepend's 51.9% on OOD (Both), and 34.7% against 59.4% on OOD (Entity), do not support "strong" performance.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§7] The concluding chapter contains a grammatically broken sentence ("a method that modifies slightly addresses the critical challenge of propagating edit to related fact") and a duplicated conjunction in "entities and and relations"; both should be fixed.
  2. [Table 5 caption; Tables 13, 15] The word "accroding" appears in several captions and should read "according".
  3. [§2.1] The update formula "ΔW=α∇p_W(f)" uses ∇p_W(f), which as written is the gradient of a probability rather than of a log-likelihood; the notation should be ∇_W log p_W(f) to match Eq. (3).
  4. [Table 2] MEND(Mid-Upper)'s in-domain specificity (58.3) is dramatically lower than MEND(standard config)'s (87.1) and lower than PropMEND's (93.6); a brief explanation of this specificity collapse under the matched-layers configuration would help readers interpret the comparison.
  5. [Appendix D.2] The entity/relation filtering for Controlled RippleEdit is performed using Llama-3.2-1B-base-QA, while the main experiments use Qwen-2.5-1.5B-base-QA; a sentence justifying transferability, or a check that the filtered set is also well known to Qwen, would strengthen the OOD claims.
  6. [§5.1] The additional SFT on "500 QA pairs involving real-world entities and relations in Controlled RippleEdit" should specify which split these pairs come from, to rule out leakage into the OOD test sets.
  7. [References] Reference [36] contains a formatting artifact ("Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, ...") that should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PropMEND is trained directly on propagation questions, but evaluation uses held-out data and the paper's own OOD experiments are an honest anti-circularity check.

full rationale

PropMEND is a meta-learned editor whose hypernetwork is trained with the outer-loop loss in Eq. (2), which is negative log-likelihood on propagation questions, and then evaluated on propagation questions. This is a standard train/test setup, not a circular derivation. The RippleEdit evaluation uses disjoint 500-example test and validation splits from the 3,686-example meta-training set, so the reported non-verbatim gains are held-out generalization within the training distribution. The Controlled RippleEdit experiments are explicitly designed as the anti-circularity check: OOD (Entity), OOD (Relation), and OOD (Both) hold out entities and relations from hypernetwork training, and the paper reports a sharp drop from 64.0% in-domain to 17.7% OOD-Both efficacy in Table 2, honestly bounding the generalization claim. That the in-domain objective matches the test objective is not circular; it is supervised meta-learning. The self-citations (e.g., [32,33] for Prepend's competitiveness and in-context propagation) are contextual and not load-bearing; there is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work and no ansatz smuggled in by citation. The abstract's 'unseen entity-relation pairs' claim is imprecise if read to include the non-parametric Prepend baseline, which achieves 51.9% on OOD (Both), but this is a claim-accuracy issue about comparison scope, not a circularity of the derivation. Overall, no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new theoretical entities are introduced; the synthetic fake entities in Controlled RippleEdit are dataset instances, not postulated mechanisms.

free parameters (3)
  • c_edit = 0.1
    Coefficient balancing editing and locality losses in Eq. (1); chosen by hand and held constant.
  • target edit layers = Llama-3.2-1B: layers 4-15; Qwen-2.5-1.5B: layers 13-27; Llama-3.2-3B: layers 15-27
    Layer selection is tuned on validation and is a major factor in the method's performance; different for each base model (Table 19c).
  • LLM-as-Judge filtering threshold = 0.4
    Threshold used to filter entities/relations for Controlled RippleEdit; arbitrary and affects dataset composition (Section D.2).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption MEND's rank-1 gradient decomposition and hypernetwork architecture are correct and sufficient for the update transformation
    PropMEND inherits the MEND machinery (Section 2.2, B.3) without re-deriving it; if MEND's low-rank update space cannot support propagation, the method fails.
  • domain assumption The base model parametrically knows the prerequisite facts needed for propagation questions
    The paper notes tail entities in RippleEdit are not known by the base LM (Section 4.3), so propagation can only work when prerequisite knowledge exists.
  • domain assumption The set of propagation question types used in meta-training covers the test-time question types
    The outer-loop loss (Eq. 2) is defined over the same question types (LG, CI, CII, SA, FN, RS) used at test time; OOD results show generalization to unseen relations is limited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PropMEND: Hypernetworks for Knowledge Propagation in LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALVOXKKJ

@misc{pith2026250608920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PropMEND: Hypernetworks for Knowledge Propagation in LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALVOXKKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08920}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge editing techniques for large language models (LLMs) can inject knowledge that is later reproducible verbatim, but they fall short on propagating that knowledge: models cannot answer questions that require reasoning with the injected knowledge. We present a hypernetwork-based approach for knowledge propagation, named PropMEND, where we meta-learn how to modify gradients of a language modeling loss to encourage injected information to propagate. Our approach extends the meta-objective of MEND [29] so that gradient updates on knowledge are transformed to enable answering multi-hop questions involving that knowledge. We show improved performance on the RippleEdit dataset, showing almost 2x accuracy on challenging multi-hop questions whose answers are not explicitly stated in the injected fact. We further introduce a new dataset, Controlled RippleEdit, to evaluate the generalization of our hypernetwork, testing knowledge propagation along relations and entities unseen during hypernetwork training. PropMEND still outperforms existing approaches in unseen entity-relation pairs, yet the performance gap decreases substantially, suggesting future work in propagating knowledge to a wide range of relations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our algorithm, PropMEND, enables the propagation of injected knowledge. Our hypernet￾work is trained to modify the gradient from the next token prediction loss on the injected knowledge to allow answering of multi-hop questions that rely on the newly injected knowledge. To better understand the extent of knowledge propagation, we design a new synthetic dataset Controlled RippleEdit. We focus on injecting facts relat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PropMEND. We learn a hypernetwork to take a gradient from causal language modeling of a new fact and transform it such that, when applied to the model, the model can answer propagations. The pseudocode skeleton follows MEND; differences between MEND and PropMEND are annotated. have been explored in past work where they have been harvested from knowledge bases [6] or by prompting language models [1]. A natural approa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. There are two principal modifications (training data, learning objective) and other changes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of our Controlled RippleEdit dataset, designed to evaluate knowledge propagation on well-known entities and relations. Each instance consists of (1) a fictional story (f) relating a fake entity sf to three real-world entities (o1, o2, o3); and (2) a set of…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Scaling Laws for Hypernetwork-Based Knowledge Injection in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hypernetwork-generated LoRA adapters for knowledge injection show power-law scaling in width, depth, target size, and per-example fact count, and steeper out-of-distribution scaling than LoRA or full fine-tuning on Me...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deductive closure training of language models for coherence, accuracy, and updatability

    Afra Feyza Akyürek, Ekin Akyürek, Leshem Choshen, Derry Wijaya, and Jacob Andreas. Deductive closure training of language models for coherence, accuracy, and updatability. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 9802–9818, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024. 10 Associ...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.584 2024

  2. [2]

    a is b” fail to learn “b is a

    Lukas Berglund, Meg Tong, Maximilian Kaufmann, Mikita Balesni, Asa Cooper Stickland, Tomasz Korbak, and Owain Evans. The reversal curse: LLMs trained on “a is b” fail to learn “b is a”. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=GPKTIktA0k

    2024

  3. [3]

    How do large language models acquire factual knowledge during pretraining? InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    Hoyeon Chang, Jinho Park, Seonghyeon Ye, Sohee Yang, Youngkyung Seo, Du-Seong Chang, and Minjoon Seo. How do large language models acquire factual knowledge during pretraining? InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=TYdzj1EvBP

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Continual memorization of factoids in language models, 2025

    Howard Chen, Jiayi Geng, Adithya Bhaskar, Dan Friedman, and Danqi Chen. Continual memorization of factoids in language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411. 07175

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    RECK- ONING: Reasoning through dynamic knowledge encoding

    Zeming Chen, Gail Weiss, Eric Mitchell, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Antoine Bosselut. RECK- ONING: Reasoning through dynamic knowledge encoding. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= dUAcAtCuKk

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Evaluating the ripple effects of knowledge editing in language models.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:283–298, 2024

    Roi Cohen, Eden Biran, Ori Yoran, Amir Globerson, and Mor Geva. Evaluating the ripple effects of knowledge editing in language models.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:283–298, 2024. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00644. URL https://aclanthology. org/2024.tacl-1.16/

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00644 2024

  7. [7]

    Editing Factual Knowledge in Language Models

    Nicola De Cao, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. Editing Factual Knowledge in Language Models. InProceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Alphaedit: Null-space constrained model editing for language models

    Junfeng Fang, Houcheng Jiang, Kun Wang, Yunshan Ma, Jie Shi, Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua. Alphaedit: Null-space constrained model editing for language models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=HvSytvg3Jh

    work page 2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Franke, Michael Hefenbrock, and Frank Hutter

    Jörg K.H. Franke, Michael Hefenbrock, and Frank Hutter. Preserving principal subspaces to reduce catastrophic forgetting in fine-tuning. InICLR 2024 Workshop on Mathematical and Empirical Understanding of Foundation Models, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=XoWtroECJU

    2024

  2. [10]

    ECLeKTic: a Novel Challenge Set for Evaluation of Cross- Lingual Knowledge Transfer, 2025

    Omer Goldman, Uri Shaham, Dan Malkin, Sivan Eiger, Avinatan Hassidim, Yossi Matias, Joshua Maynez, Adi Mayrav Gilady, Jason Riesa, Shruti Rijhwani, Laura Rimell, Idan Szpektor, Reut Tsarfaty, and Matan Eyal. ECLeKTic: a Novel Challenge Set for Evaluation of Cross- Lingual Know...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Model editing harms general abilities of large language models: Regularization to the rescue

    Jia-Chen Gu, Hao-Xiang Xu, Jun-Yu Ma, Pan Lu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. Model editing harms general abilities of large language models: Regularization to the rescue. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors,Proceedings of the 2024 Conf...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovi´c, Swabha Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), abs/2004.10...

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aging with GRACE: Lifelong model editing with discrete key-value adaptors

    Thomas Hartvigsen, Swami Sankaranarayanan, Hamid Palangi, Yoon Kim, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Aging with GRACE: Lifelong model editing with discrete key-value adaptors. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?i...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Fundamen- tal problems with model editing: How should rational belief revision work in LLMs?Transac- tions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    Peter Hase, Thomas Hofweber, Xiang Zhou, Elias Stengel-Eskin, and Mohit Bansal. Fundamen- tal problems with model editing: How should rational belief revision work in LLMs?Transac- tions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=L...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Instruction-tuned language models are better knowledge learners

    Zhengbao Jiang, Zhiqing Sun, Weijia Shi, Pedro Rodriguez, Chunting Zhou, Graham Neubig, Xi Lin, Wen-tau Yih, and Srini Iyer. Instruction-tuned language models are better knowledge learners. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annua...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Demystifying forgetting in language model fine-tuning with sta- tistical analysis of example associations

    Xisen Jin and Xiang Ren. Demystifying forgetting in language model fine-tuning with sta- tistical analysis of example associations. InNeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Scalable Continual Learning for Lifelong Foundation Models, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=0d03UdUY0w

    2024

  9. [17]

    What Will My Model Forget? Forecasting Forgotten Examples in Lan- guage Model Refinement, 2024

    Xisen Jin and Xiang Ren. What Will My Model Forget? Forecasting Forgotten Examples in Lan- guage Model Refinement, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=u1eynu9DVf

    2024

  10. [18]

    TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension

    Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Regina Barzilay and Min-Yen Kan, editors,Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Lin...

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Continual pre-training of language models

    Zixuan Ke, Yijia Shao, Haowei Lin, Tatsuya Konishi, Gyuhak Kim, and Bing Liu. Continual pre-training of language models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=m_GDIItaI3o

    2023

  12. [20]

    Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav...

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension

    Omer Levy, Minjoon Seo, Eunsol Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension. In Roger Levy and Lucia Specia, editors,Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 333–342, Vancouver, Can...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Reinforced lifelong editing for language models, 2025

    Zherui Li, Houcheng Jiang, Hao Chen, Baolong Bi, Zhenhong Zhou, Fei Sun, Junfeng Fang, and Xiang Wang. Reinforced lifelong editing for language models, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.05759

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    CodeUpdateArena: Benchmarking Knowledge Editing on API Updates, 2025

    Zeyu Leo Liu, Shrey Pandit, Xi Ye, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. CodeUpdateArena: Benchmarking Knowledge Editing on API Updates, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2407.06249

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Untying the reversal curse via bidirectional language model editing, 2024

    Jun-Yu Ma, Jia-Chen Gu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Quan Liu, and Cong Liu. Untying the reversal curse via bidirectional language model editing, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 10322

    2024

  17. [25]

    Perturbation- restrained sequential model editing

    Jun-Yu Ma, Hong Wang, Hao-Xiang Xu, Zhen-Hua Ling, and Jia-Chen Gu. Perturbation- restrained sequential model editing. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=bfI8cp8qmk

    2025

  18. [26]

    Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT

    Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT. InProceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022. 12

    2022

  19. [27]

    Mass- Editing Memory in a Transformer

    Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. Mass- Editing Memory in a Transformer. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Pointer sentinel mixture models

    Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. Pointer sentinel mixture models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=Byj72udxe

    2017

  21. [29]

    Fast Model Editing at Scale

    Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. Fast Model Editing at Scale. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Representation shattering in transformers: A synthetic study with knowledge editing,

    Kento Nishi, Maya Okawa, Rahul Ramesh, Mikail Khona, Hidenori Tanaka, and Ekdeep Singh Lubana. Representation shattering in transformers: A synthetic study with knowledge editing,

  23. [31]

    Entity cloze by date: What LMs know about unseen entities

    Yasumasa Onoe, Michael Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. Entity cloze by date: What LMs know about unseen entities. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 693–702, Seattle, United States, July 2022. Association for Computational Ling...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Zhang, Shankar Padmanabhan, Greg Durrett, and Eunsol Choi

    Yasumasa Onoe, Michael J.Q. Zhang, Shankar Padmanabhan, Greg Durrett, and Eunsol Choi. Can LMs Learn New Entities from Descriptions? Challenges in Propagating Injected Knowl- edge. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Propagating knowledge updates to LMs through distillation

    Shankar Padmanabhan, Yasumasa Onoe, Michael JQ Zhang, Greg Durrett, and Eunsol Choi. Propagating knowledge updates to LMs through distillation. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= DFaGf3O7jf

    2023

  26. [34]

    Courville

    Ethan Perez, Florian Strub, Harm de Vries, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron C. Courville. FiLM: Visual Reasoning with a General Conditioning Layer. InAAAI, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Jiaxin Qin, Zixuan Zhang, Chi Han, Pengfei Yu, Manling Li, and Heng Ji. Why does new knowledge create messy ripple effects in LLMs? In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors,Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process...

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Qwen2.5 technical report, 2025

    Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    SAKE: Steering Activations for Knowledge Editing, 2025

    Marco Scialanga, Thibault Laugel, Vincent Grari, and Marcin Detyniecki. SAKE: Steering Activations for Knowledge Editing, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01751

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Editable neural networks

    Anton Sinitsin, Vsevolod Plokhotnyuk, Dmitry Pyrkin, Sergei Popov, and Artem Babenko. Editable neural networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=HJedXaEtvS

    2020

  31. [39]

    Massive editing for large language models via meta learning

    Chenmien Tan, Ge Zhang, and Jie Fu. Massive editing for large language models via meta learning. InICLR, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=L6L1CJQ2PE

    2024

  32. [40]

    MuSiQue: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539–554, 2022

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. MuSiQue: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539–554, 2022. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00475. URL https: //aclanthology.org...

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    EasyEdit: An easy-to-use knowledge editing framework for large language models

    Peng Wang, Ningyu Zhang, Bozhong Tian, Zekun Xi, Yunzhi Yao, Ziwen Xu, Mengru Wang, Shengyu Mao, Xiaohan Wang, Siyuan Cheng, Kangwei Liu, Yuansheng Ni, Guozhou Zheng, and Huajun Chen. EasyEdit: An easy-to-use knowledge editing framework for large language models. In Yixin Cao,...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Memorizing is not enough: Deep knowledge injection through reasoning, 2025

    Ruoxi Xu, Yunjie Ji, Boxi Cao, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Ben He, Yingfei Sun, Xiangang Li, and Le Sun. Memorizing is not enough: Deep knowledge injection through reasoning, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00472

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Ellen Riloff, David Chiang, Julia Hockenmaier, and Jun’ichi Tsujii, editors, Proc...

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    Synthetic continued pretraining, 2024

    Zitong Yang, Neil Band, Shuangping Li, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Synthetic continued pretraining, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07431

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cake: Circuit-aware editing enables generalizable knowledge learners, 2025

    Yunzhi Yao, Jizhan Fang, Jia-Chen Gu, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, and Nanyun Peng. Cake: Circuit-aware editing enables generalizable knowledge learners, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16356

    2025

  38. [46]

    DAFNet: Dynamic auxiliary fusion for sequential model editing in large language models

    Taolin Zhang, Qizhou Chen, Dongyang Li, Chengyu Wang, Xiaofeng He, Longtao Huang, Hui Xue’, and Jun Huang. DAFNet: Dynamic auxiliary fusion for sequential model editing in large language models. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Findings of the Associat...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Can we edit factual knowledge by in-context learning? InThe 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023

    Ce Zheng, Lei Li, Qingxiu Dong, Yuxuan Fan, Zhiyong Wu, Jingjing Xu, and Baobao Chang. Can we edit factual knowledge by in-context learning? InThe 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=hsjQHAM8MV

    2023

  40. [48]

    MQuAKE-remastered: Multi-hop knowledge editing can only be advanced with reliable evaluations

    Shaochen Zhong, Yifan Lu, Lize Shao, Bhargav Bhushanam, Xiaocong Du, Yixin Wan, Yucheng Shi, Daochen Zha, Yiwei Wang, Ninghao Liu, Kaixiong Zhou, Shuai Xu, Kai-Wei Chang, Louis Feng, Vipin Chaudhary, and Xia Hu. MQuAKE-remastered: Multi-hop knowledge editing can only be advanc...

    2025

  41. [49]

    Imagine thatf

    Zexuan Zhong, Zhengxuan Wu, Christopher D Manning, Christopher Potts, and Danqi Chen. MQuAKE: Assessing knowledge editing in language models via multi-hop questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14795, 2023. Appendix 14 A Prompt A.1 LLM-as-Judge prompt [Instruction] Please act as ...

    1982 arXiv

  42. [51]

    H Computational resources We conducted experiments with Llama-3.2-1B-base primarily on a server with NVIDIA A40 48GB GPUs and an AMD EPYC 7413 24-Core Processor

    focuses on cross-lingual knowledge transfer. H Computational resources We conducted experiments with Llama-3.2-1B-base primarily on a server with NVIDIA A40 48GB GPUs and an AMD EPYC 7413 24-Core Processor. For larger models, our experiments were conducted on a server with NVI...

  43. [2025]

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=MjFoQAhnl3

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.