Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Can Knowledge Editing Really Correct Hallucinations?

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

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

classification cs.CL
keywords editingknowledgehallucinationsllmsmethodscorrectcorrectingdifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Reinforced Lifelong Editing for Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    RLEdit trains a hypernetwork to edit LLM parameters over long knowledge sequences by maximizing a trajectory-level reward, and reports strong accuracy and large speedups versus existing editing methods.

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

    cs.LG 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

  3. Don't Use a Cannon to Kill a Fly: Lightweight Model Editing for LLMs to Correct Deprecated API Recommendations

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AdaLoRA-L restricts edits to API-specific layers and raises specificity by 33–836% (relative) on a new 3,000+ instance benchmark while staying close to AdaLoRA's effectiveness.

  4. COMPKE: Complex Question Answering under Knowledge Editing

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    COMPKE is a new benchmark with 11,924 complex questions that tests knowledge editing through one-to-many relations and logical operations, where existing editing methods often fail.

  5. Context-DPO: Aligning Language Models for Context-Faithfulness

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Context-DPO fine-tunes LLMs with direct preference optimization on counterfactual passages, yielding 35-280% context-faithfulness gains on its new ConFiQA benchmark.

Pith tools