Robust Knowledge Editing via Explicit Reasoning Chains for Distractor-Resilient Multi-Hop QA

Dacheng Tao; Liang Ding; Li Shen; Yuchen Wu

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Robust Knowledge Editing via Explicit Reasoning Chains for Distractor-Resilient Multi-Hop QA

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-pass reasoning chains make edited LLMs ignore distractors

desk verdict Useful one-pass knowledge-editing recipe, but the headline 6.3% drop figure is misleading: on the 38% of MQuAKE-CF-3K where answers are not leaked, the drop is ~16 points. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01468 v1 pith:JD54S563 submitted 2025-09-01 cs.CL

Yuchen Wu , Liang Ding , Li Shen , Dacheng Tao This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords knowledgeeditingmulti-hopquestionansweringdistractorrobustnessreasoningchainssupervisedfine-tuningMQuAKE-CFin-contextLLM

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

The paper proposes Reason-KE, a knowledge-editing method that teaches a large language model to answer multi-hop questions by producing a fixed four-stage reasoning chain—acknowledge the edited facts, judge relevance, apply or ignore each fact, then reason to the answer—in a single forward pass. The central claim is that plain supervised fine-tuning on such reasoning traces, with editing sets deliberately polluted by irrelevant facts, makes a 7-billion-parameter model more resistant to distractor-heavy edits than retrieval-based iterative pipelines. On MQuAKE-CF-3K, Reason-KE raises Qwen2.5-7B's multi-hop accuracy to 90.2%, 17.6 percentage points above the strongest baseline, while the accuracy drop stays at 6.3% when four distractors are added per relevant fact and below 1% when the final answer is already exposed in the edited facts. If this holds, knowledge editing can be reframed as a reasoning-skill fine-tuning problem rather than a retrieval or weight-surgery problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a fixed four-stage reasoning trace—acknowledge, relevance determination, apply-or-ignore, final reasoning—used as supervised fine-tuning data. The training set augments editing sets with distractors at a 90/5/5 mix of 0, 2, and 4 irrelevant facts per relevant fact, teaching the model to discard noise while composing the answer chain. The whole trace is generated in a single forward pass, replacing the iterative retrieval-and-revise loops used by baselines such as EditCoT, RAE, MeLLo, and PokeMQA.

What would settle it

Split MQuAKE-CF-3K into the 1,852 answer-exposed and 1,148 non-exposed questions and run Reason-KE and RAE on each half under 0, 2, and 4 distractors. If Reason-KE's edge over RAE disappears or falls sharply on the non-exposed half, the paper's central claim of distractor-resilient reasoning fails; if the edge persists, the claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Reason-KE's central discovery is that noise resistance in knowledge editing can be trained in directly. The paper builds 9,218 step-by-step reasoning traces over MQuAKE-CF editing sets, mixes in 0, 2, or 4 distractors per relevant fact at a 90/5/5 ratio, and vanilla-fine-tunes Qwen2.5-7B to reproduce the four stages—acknowledge, determine relevance, apply-or-ignore, final reasoning—in one pass. The resulting model reaches 90.2% average multi-hop accuracy on MQuAKE-CF-3K, outperforming the retrieval-augmented baseline RAE by 17.6 points; with two or four distractors per fact, it drops only about 0.3 and 6.3 points from its no-distractor accuracy, and on the 1,852 test questions where the answ

Load-bearing premise

The test set mostly exposes the final answer verbatim among the edited facts, and the paper only reports distractor robustness on those exposed items, so the claim of learned distractor-filtering may not hold for questions where the answer is hidden.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Knowledge editing can be cast as fine-tuning a reasoning skill: a fixed prompt protocol, no per-example search or parameter localization.
Robustness to irrelevant facts is achievable without retrieval; one forward pass filters distractors, which also cuts inference time relative to iterative baselines.
Editing behavior becomes inspectable in the generated trace because the model states which facts it judged relevant and which it ignored.
The recipe transfers across base models and benchmarks, suggesting the four-stage protocol, not a specific architecture, carries the effect.
A cheaper teacher model suffices for generating training traces, lowering the barrier to applying the method.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's robustness numbers are reported only for the 1,852 answer-exposed questions; the natural next experiment is to report non-leaked accuracy separately. If the 17.6-point edge over RAE mostly lives in the leaked subset, the claim of distractor-resilient reasoning would need to be narrowed to answer-copying resilience.
Because the model explicitly outputs 'apply or ignore' decisions, those decisions could be scored or verified during inference, offering a cheap way to catch wrong relevance judgments without full iterative loops.
The fixed 90/5/5 distractor mix is a training choice, not an optimized curriculum; adversarially selected or progressively harder distractors would test whether the robustness ceiling is set by data diversity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Reason-KE is a simple, sensible idea: fine-tune a 7B model to emit a fixed four-stage reasoning trace (acknowledge, relevance, apply/ignore, reason) in a single forward pass, with training data augmented with 0/2/4 distractors. On MQuAKE-CF-3K it beats RAE, the best prior baseline, by 17.6 points average. That result is not produced by construction—the test set is non-overlapping with training—and the paper ships code, data, and model. The ablations show each stage matters and the model doesn't simply match surface patterns. Credit where due: this is a clean recipe others can build on.

But the central robustness claim is overstated. The 6.3% average drop under four distractors hides the fact that 61.7% of test items have the answer verbatim in the edit set. Table 3 reports accuracy on that leaked subset (96.7% with four distractors), but never on the 1,148 non-leaked items. Combining Table 3 with the full-set averages in Table 4 implies non-leaked accuracy falls from ~88.6% (no distractors) to ~72.7% with four distractors—an absolute drop of 15.9 points, not 6.3%. So the realistic setting where the answer isn't exposed shows considerably less robustness. This doesn't overturn the comparison with RAE, which on the same subset lands near 40% with four distractors; Reason-KE is still clearly better. But the paper's chosen numbers misrepresent the method's resilience, and a reader can't see the full picture without doing arithmetic the authors didn't.

Other soft spots are minor by comparison. All results are single-run point estimates with no seeds or error bars. MeLLo and PokeMQA run on DeepSeek-V3 while the rest use Qwen2.5-7B, muddying direct comparisons. And the 4-hop scores are anomalously higher than 3-hop for several methods, suggesting dataset composition effects that are never examined.

Bottom line: worth refereeing, but the authors should be required to report non-leaked-subset accuracy and per-seed variance, and revise the abstract's resilience claim. As written, this is a solid empirical study with a benchmark-level caveat that needs fixing.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Reason-KE, a single-pass knowledge-editing method. An LLM is fine-tuned on MQuAKE-CF with DeepSeek-R1-generated four-stage reasoning traces (acknowledgment, relevance determination, selective application, final reasoning) and with 0/2/4 distractors added to 90%/5%/5% of training cases. At inference, the model processes the editing set and question in one pass, filtering irrelevant facts. On the stated non-overlapping MQuAKE-CF-3K test set, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct reaches 90.2% average multi-hop accuracy, 17.6 pp above RAE, with a 6.3% average drop under added distractors and <1% drop on answer-exposed items. Additional experiments cover Llama-3-8B, DUNE subsets, ablations of training components, teacher-model dependence, and inference-time comparisons. Code, generated training data, and the fine-tuned model are publicly released.

Significance. If the main result holds, Reason-KE is a strong and simple alternative to iterative retrieval-based editing pipelines, and the public release of code/data/model is a concrete reproducibility asset. The external test set, explicitly stated to be non-overlapping with training, and the answer-exposure analysis are genuine strengths; many knowledge-editing papers do not even acknowledge the leakage issue. The ablations are coherent, and the answer-only collapse in Table 4 provides a useful sanity check. However, the central distractor-resilience claim is overstated because the non-leaked complement is never reported: on the 1,148 items without verbatim answer exposure, the implied accuracy drop under heavy distraction is roughly three times the pooled 6.3% figure. The method may still outperform RAE on the same subset, but the manuscript's headline numbers do not support the abstract's characterization without qualification.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, Tables 3–4] The leakage analysis omits the non-leaked complement. You report that 1,852/3,000 MQuAKE-CF-3K items expose the final answer verbatim in the edit set, and Table 3 gives Reason-KE only on that subset (97.08/96.70/96.71). Combining Table 3 with the pooled accuracies in Table 4 (93.83/89.23/87.53) implies accuracies of about 88.6/77.2/72.7 for the 1,148 non-exposed items. Thus Reason-KE drops 15.9 absolute points (~17.9% relative) under four distractors when the answer is not exposed, not 6.3%. This does not overturn the RAE comparison, but it materially weakens the distractor-resilience claim. Please report the complement and qualify the abstract/conclusion claims.
[Section 4, Table 3] All experiments are single runs; no seeds or error bars are reported. This is load-bearing for the answer-exposure analysis. On the 1,852 answer-exposed items, the differences in Table 3 are 0.38 and 0.37 percentage points (97.08 -> 96.70/96.71), which is within one binomial standard error (~0.39 pp). The conclusion that Reason-KE is independent of leakage is therefore not statistically supported. Report multiple seeds or confidence intervals for at least the headline cells in Tables 1, 3, and 4.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] Typos and inconsistent naming: 'Main Rsults' (Section 4 heading), 'Deepseed-R12' (Section 2.2), and inconsistent 'Mello' vs 'MeLLo'.
[Table 1 caption] The marker legend is confusing: the same down-arrow symbol is used for '>6% drop' and for 'stable performance (<6%)'. Please use distinct symbols for stable, degraded, and catastrophic cases.
[Appendix B.4] The distractor selection procedure is underspecified. 'Retrieve from the pre-edit corpus and match with the Top-k corresponding post-edit facts' should state which corpus is used, whether distractors can contain the final answer, and how the k values map to the 'w/ 2 Distr.' and 'w/ 4 Distr.' columns for multi-hop questions.
[Table 6] DUNE results compare only EditCoT; RAE and other strong baselines are absent. The 'state-of-the-art' wording for DUNE is not supported by the displayed evidence.
[Section 3] The relation between total distractors and per-fact distractors is inconsistent: Section 3 says n = m × k with k ∈ {0,1,2}, while Figure 1 says 2/4 distractors are added per relevant fact. Please define the columns unambiguously.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity; the central evaluation is external and non-overlapping, though the leakage analysis omits the non-leaked complement (a reporting gap, not a circular reduction).

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) construct a training set from MQuAKE-CF with DeepSeek-R1-generated four-stage reasoning traces and injected distractors; (2) vanilla fine-tune Qwen2.5-7B; (3) evaluate on MQuAKE-CF-3K, stated to share no overlapping data points with the training set. The headline 90.2% accuracy and the 17.6 pp gain over RAE are measured against an external benchmark, not produced by construction from the training objective or from any fitted parameter. The ablations in Table 4 independently show that removing each stage degrades performance, so the four-stage design has identifiable empirical content. Self-citations (Zhong et al. 2024, Zhang et al. 2025, Wu et al. 2025) appear only as related-work motivation for merging steps into one pass; they do not supply a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or justify the main result. No ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The one substantive weakness is in Section 4: the leakage analysis reports Table 3 only on the 1,852 answer-exposed items, never the 1,148 non-exposed complement, even though the paper itself notes the exposure. Solving from Table 3 and Table 4 implies substantially larger drops on non-leaked items. This is a correctness/generalizability gap in the robustness claim, not circularity: the test numbers are still external, and no result is equivalent to its input by definition. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on that the reader didn't pay for upstream: benchmark validity, the leakage assumption, distractor semantics, and teacher-trace trust. None is exotic, but the leakage assumption in particular is acknowledged (Section 4) yet never fully discharged because non-leaked-subset accuracy is absent.

free parameters (4)

distractor training mix ratio (0/2/4 distractors at 90%/5%/5%) = 90%/5%/5%
Section 2.2, hand-set augmentation schedule; the -w/o Distr. sample ablation (Table 4, 89.35 vs 90.20) shows sensitivity but no sweep over ratios is reported.
evaluation distractor levels k = k = 0,1,2 per supporting fact
Appendix B.4; the test-time distraction regime (up to 8 added facts for 4-hop with k=2) exceeds the training maximum of 4 distractors.
SFT hyperparameters = lr 1e-5, 5 epochs, block size 32768, cosine schedule
Table 9; standard values, no sweep reported.
drop thresholds for table markers = 6% and 12% (Tables 1,2) and 5% (Table 3)
Arbitrary annotation thresholds in captions, not analytical.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption MQuAKE-CF-3K is a valid testbed for multi-hop knowledge editing
All headline conclusions rest on this single test set (3000 items, Table 8); validity is inherited from the MQuAKE benchmark paper.
domain assumption The 61.7% of test items with leaked answers do not dominate measured accuracy
Acknowledged in Section 4; Table 3 examines only the leaked subset and the non-leaked subset is never analyzed.
domain assumption Contriever Top-k retrieval produces genuinely irrelevant distractors
Appendix B.4; no human or LLM verification that the retrieved facts are irrelevant, so 'distractor' semantics rely on the retriever.
domain assumption DeepSeek-R1-generated reasoning traces are correct and learnable
Section 2.2, 9,218 traces; teacher-model dependence is partially tested in Table 7 (Llama-3-8B teacher gives 84.82 vs 88.67).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Knowledge Editing via Explicit Reasoning Chains for Distractor-Resilient Multi-Hop QA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JD54S563

@misc{pith2026250901468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Knowledge Editing via Explicit Reasoning Chains for Distractor-Resilient Multi-Hop QA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JD54S563}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01468}
}

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) encode vast amounts of world knowledge but remain static once trained, making the timely integration of emerging facts prohibitively expensive via full retraining. Knowledge-editing techniques have thus emerged to inject or overwrite specific facts into LLMs, yet they either over-rely on superficial cues or incur complex, iterative pipelines that collapse under noisy, multi-hop conditions. We introduce Reason-KE, an end-to-end reasoning-chain-based editing framework that steers a pretrained LLM through four structured stages-fact acknowledgment, relevance determination, selective application, and final reasoning-to filter distractors in a single pass. Trained on MQuAKE-CF with up to four irrelevant facts, Reason-KE elevates Qwen2.5-7B's multi-hop QA accuracy to 90.2% while suffering merely a 6.3% drop under heavy distraction and <1% when answers are leaked. Our quantitative analysis confirms Reason-KE's resilience and efficiency, establishing a new state-of-the-art for reliable LLM knowledge updates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01468 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Performance of three knowledge-editing methods under increasing levels of distraction. (a) w/o distractor: Editing sets contain only relevant facts. (b) w/ 2 distractors: Two irrelevant facts are added for each relevant fact. (c) w/ 4 distractors: Four irrelevant facts are added for each relevant fact. Numeric annotations above each bar indicate the relative accuracy drop (↓) from the no-distractor setting. Our met… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Illustration of our four-stage workflow for multi-hop KE in the presence of distractors. 1. Acknowledge Updated Information ingests all editing facts (“Fact A & B”). 2. Determine Relevance evaluates each fact against the question to gauge usefulness. 3. Apply or Ignore retains relevant facts (“Fact A”), discards others (“Fact B”). 4. Reasoning composes an explicit reasoning chain to derive the final answer (“Zoran … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average inference time for n editing instances, where n = 1, 10, 50, 100. is not contingent on a single proprietary teacher model. Reason-KE demonstrates high efficiency in various scenarios. We investigate the inference efficiency of Reason-KE and other in-context-learning methods using 100 randomly sampled questions from MQuAKE-CF-3k [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Afra Feyza Aky \"u rek, Eric Pan, Garry Kuwanto, and Derry Wijaya. 2023. Dune: Dataset for unified editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16087

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[4]

Roi Cohen, Eden Biran, Ori Yoran, Amir Globerson, and Mor Geva. 2024 a . Evaluating the ripple effects of knowledge editing in language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:283--298

work page 2024
[5]

Roi Cohen, Eden Biran, Ori Yoran, Amir Globerson, and Mor Geva. 2024 b . Evaluating the ripple effects of knowledge editing in language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:283--298

work page 2024
[6]

Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, and 1 others. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

arXiv 2024
[7]

Hengrui Gu, Kaixiong Zhou, Xiaotian Han, Ninghao Liu, Ruobing Wang, and Xin Wang. 2023. Pokemqa: Programmable knowledge editing for multi-hop question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15194

arXiv 2023
[8]

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, and 1 others. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint

work page 2025

Show all 29 references

[9]

Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09118

2021 arXiv
[10]

Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, and 1 others. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437

2024 arXiv
[11]

Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. What makes good in-context examples for gpt- 3 ? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804

2021 arXiv
[12]

Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022 a . Locating and editing factual associations in GPT . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA,...

2022
[13]

Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. 2022 b . Mass-editing memory in a transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07229

2022 arXiv
[14]

Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Fast model editing at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11309

2021 arXiv
[15]

Keqin Peng, Liang Ding, Qihuang Zhong, Li Shen, Xuebo Liu, Min Zhang, Yuanxin Ouyang, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Towards making the most of chatgpt for machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023

2023
[16]

Yucheng Shi, Qiaoyu Tan, Xuansheng Wu, Shaochen Zhong, Kaixiong Zhou, and Ninghao Liu. 2024. Retrieval-enhanced knowledge editing in language models for multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Managemen...

2024
[17]

Changyue Wang, Weihang Su, Qingyao Ai, and Yiqun Liu. 2024 a . Knowledge editing through chain-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17727

2024 arXiv
[18]

Peng Wang, Ningyu Zhang, Bozhong Tian, Zekun Xi, Yunzhi Yao, Ziwen Xu, Mengru Wang, Shengyu Mao, Xiaohan Wang, Siyuan Cheng, and 1 others. 2023. Easyedit: An easy-to-use knowledge editing framework for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07269

2023 arXiv
[19]

Yiwei Wang, Muhao Chen, Nanyun Peng, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2024 b . Deepedit: Knowledge editing as decoding with constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10471

2024 arXiv
[20]

Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, and 1 others. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research

2022
[21]

Yuchen Wu, Liang Ding, Li Shen, and Dacheng Tao. 2025. Edit once, update everywhere: A simple framework for cross-lingual knowledge synchronization in llms. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025

2025
[22]

An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, and 1 others. 2024. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115

2024 arXiv
[23]

Yunzhi Yao, Peng Wang, Bozhong Tian, Siyuan Cheng, Zhoubo Li, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. 2023. Editing large language models: Problems, methods, and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13172

2023 arXiv
[24]

Yuqi Zhang, Liang Ding, Lefei Zhang, and Dacheng Tao. 2025. Intention analysis makes llms a good jailbreak defender. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics

2025
[25]

Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, and 1 others. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223

2023 arXiv
[26]

Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. 2023 a . Can chatgpt understand too? a comparative study on chatgpt and fine-tuned bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10198

2023 arXiv
[27]

Qihuang Zhong, Kang Wang, Ziyang Xu, Juhua Liu, Liang Ding, and Bo Du. 2024. Achieving> 97\ arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14963

2024 arXiv
[28]

Zexuan Zhong, Zhengxuan Wu, Christopher D Manning, Christopher Potts, and Danqi Chen. 2023 b . Mquake: Assessing knowledge editing in language models via multi-hop questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14795

2023 arXiv
[29]

Chen Zhu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Manzil Zaheer, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Daliang Li, Felix Yu, and Sanjiv Kumar. 2020. Modifying memories in transformer models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00363

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Afra Feyza Aky \"u rek, Eric Pan, Garry Kuwanto, and Derry Wijaya. 2023. Dune: Dataset for unified editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16087

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Roi Cohen, Eden Biran, Ori Yoran, Amir Globerson, and Mor Geva. 2024 a . Evaluating the ripple effects of knowledge editing in language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:283--298

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Roi Cohen, Eden Biran, Ori Yoran, Amir Globerson, and Mor Geva. 2024 b . Evaluating the ripple effects of knowledge editing in language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:283--298

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, and 1 others. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Hengrui Gu, Kaixiong Zhou, Xiaotian Han, Ninghao Liu, Ruobing Wang, and Xin Wang. 2023. Pokemqa: Programmable knowledge editing for multi-hop question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15194

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, and 1 others. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint

work page 2025