Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 17 references

One for All: Update Parameterized Knowledge Across Multiple Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A single edit to a small plug-in model, blended with each target LLM through a dynamically weighted ensemble, updates multiple models at once and outperforms per-model editing methods.

desk verdict The multi-model editing idea is fresh and worth a referee, but the implausible baseline numbers (MEND all zeros, ROME near zero) mean the headline claim of consistent outperformance isn't supported yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00817 v1 pith:LLTBZGDP submitted 2025-06-01 cs.CL

Weitao Ma , Xiyuan Du , Xiaocheng Feng , Lei Huang , Yichong Huang , Huiyi Zhang , Xiaoliang Yang , Baohang Li
show 3 more authors
Xiachong Feng Ting Liu Bing Qin
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords multi-modelknowledgeeditingmodelensembleplug-indynamicweighttokenrelativetransfermatrixefficiencyheterogeneousLLMreliabilitygeneralitylocality
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

Most knowledge-editing methods change one model's parameters at a time, so updating a fleet of LLMs means repeating the edit for each. This paper proposes OnceEdit: fine-tune a small plug-in model once with the new knowledge, then attach it to any target LLM by blending the two models' output distributions in a shared relative-representation space. A special [WEIGHT] token learned during fine-tuning decides per input how much to trust the plug-in versus the target model, and two decoding adjustments stop the larger target model from drowning out the edit. The paper reports that this single-edit procedure outperforms seven established editing methods on ZsRE and Counterfact across Llama2-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.1, and GPT-J-6B, while requiring only one editing intervention instead of three. If the claim holds, knowledge updates become a plug-and-play operation that is largely independent of which LLM is being updated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the [WEIGHT] token: a token added to the plug-in model's vocabulary whose logit is sigmoid-transformed into the ensemble weight $\alpha = \phi(\mathrm{logit}_w(x))$ used in Equation 8. Because it is trained jointly with the generation objective (Equation 7), it is supposed to output values near 1 for edit-related inputs and near 0 for unrelated inputs, acting as a per-instance router between plug-in knowledge and LLM knowledge. The second mechanism is the relative transfer matrix from DEEPEN, which maps each model's vocabulary distribution into a shared anchor-word space so heterogeneous LLMs can be ensembled. The third is the ensemble enhancement pair—search-space zero initialization (starting the decoding search from a zero vector rather than the LLM's distribution) and target augmentation (one-hotting the aggregated distribution)—which corrects the central-model bias that would otherwise suppress the plug-in's newly learned facts.

What would settle it

Take a trained OnceEdit plug-in and, for a target model it was not analyzed on (say Llama3-70B), record the predicted $\alpha$ on the locality set (non-edit inputs). If $\alpha$ is frequently greater than roughly 0.3 on inputs that should be untouched, the plug-in's unedited knowledge would pollute the target model's outputs, so the reported locality would collapse; this measurement is a direct test of whether the [WEIGHT] classifier generalizes across models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

OnceEdit's central claim is that knowledge editing can be treated as a multi-model transfer problem rather than a per-model parameter surgery. The authors train a lightweight plug-in model (TinyLlama) with a full fine-tuning objective for the new facts plus a binary classification objective on a special [WEIGHT] token, so that the token's logit, passed through a sigmoid, yields an instance-level ensemble weight $\alpha$. At inference, the plug-in's output distribution and the target LLM's output distribution are each mapped through a relative transfer matrix of anchor-word similarities into a shared space and fused as $P = \alpha \cdot (p_s R_s) + (1-\alpha) \cdot (p_l R_l)$. Because naive ensembling lets the larger LLM dominate, the decoding search is initialized from a zero vector instead of the LLM's own distribution and the fused distribution is one-hot hardened as the target. The paper reports that this beats seven baselines on reliability, generality, and locality across three heterogeneous LLMs, and extends stably to four additional models including Llama3-70B.

Load-bearing premise

The [WEIGHT] token is trained only on TinyLlama's own inputs and logits, yet the method assumes the weight it predicts will stay trustworthy when the same plug-in is attached to a different, larger LLM at inference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Editing TinyLlama once transfers a fact to Llama2-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.1, and GPT-J-6B, cutting the number of editing interventions from three to one and total editing time below all baselines.
  • On ZsRE and Counterfact, OnceEdit reports the highest average reliability–generality–locality score, with a 14% lead over the second-best method on ZsRE and 6% on Counterfact.
  • The result holds under both teacher-forced and validation-generation decoding, meaning the updated knowledge survives actual autoregressive generation rather than just next-token conditioning.
  • The method extends to four further models (Llama3-8B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, Qwen2.5-7B, Llama3-70B), suggesting the same edited plug-in transfers to newer and larger LLMs without re-editing.
  • The plug-in model is not unique: swapping TinyLlama for Qwen2.5-1.5B still beats all baselines, indicating the approach depends on the ensemble and weight mechanism more than on the specific small model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the [WEIGHT] token's alpha generalizes beyond the tested models, the same edited plug-in could act as a model-agnostic knowledge patch that is attached to any future LLM without touching its weights; this deployment pattern is an extension the paper only hints at, since it evaluates a limited set of models.
  • The reliance on shared anchor words between vocabularies means transfer quality is likely to depend on tokenizer overlap; a testable prediction is that performance falls smoothly as anchor-word count decreases.
  • One-hot target augmentation assumes the fused distribution is unimodal; edits with multiple acceptable answers might lose locality or generality, an edge case the paper does not test.
  • The alpha predicted by [WEIGHT] is never inspected on target models, so a direct calibration check—comparing alpha to an oracle edit-label score on each LLM—would quantify how much of the method's gain comes from the learned routing versus the ensemble enhancement tricks.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes OnceEdit, a plug-in-model-based ensemble method for updating several LLMs with a single edit. A TinyLlama plug-in is fine-tuned on edit data with an auxiliary [WEIGHT] token trained by binary cross-entropy to predict edit relevance; at inference, its sigmoid output is used as the ensemble weight α in a DEEPEN-style heterogeneous ensemble, together with zero-vector initialization and one-hot target augmentation for the decoding search. The authors report teacher-forced results on ZsRE and Counterfact for Llama2-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.1, and GPT-J-6B, validation-generation results on a subset of baselines, ablations, editing-time comparisons, FLOPS estimates, and extensions to four additional models.

Significance. If the empirical claims are reproducible, the work offers a useful efficiency result: one edited plug-in model can transfer a knowledge edit to multiple heterogeneous LLMs, amortizing per-model editing costs. The explicit FLOPS derivation in Appendix C and the extension to Llama3-70B are constructive. However, the current evidence does not yet support the headline claim, because two central baselines (MEND and ROME) are reported at or near zero in Table 1, which is inconsistent with published results for these methods, and the validation-generation comparison omits several baselines. The conceptual contribution of dynamic ensemble weighting via an edited plug-in is interesting and testable, but the evaluation needs to be rerun or substantially clarified before the comparative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1, §4.2] Table 1 reports MEND as 0.00 on every metric for every model and dataset, and ROME as at most 0.07; these values are far below published results for these methods on the same benchmarks and are characteristic of failed or misconfigured baseline runs rather than meaningful comparisons. Because the claimed margins over the second-best method (14% on ZsRE, 6% on Counterfact) and the conclusion that OnceEdit 'consistently outperforms' are computed against these numbers, the central empirical claim is not currently supported. Please rerun MEND and ROME from their official implementations under EasyEdit default hyperparameters, report the exact configuration and any convergence diagnostics, and either restore plausible baseline values or explain why these runs are valid.
  2. [Figure 3, Table 7, §4.2] The validation-generation evaluation used to claim consistent outperformance reports only MEMIT, GRACE, WISE, and OnceEdit, and Table 7 shows only Llama2-7B and Mistral-7B-v0.1, omitting FT-L, MEND, ROME, and DEFER that appear in the teacher-forced comparison. The sentence in §4.2 that OnceEdit 'exhibits superior editing capabilities, outperforming all other methods' therefore cannot be evaluated for the omitted baselines; either provide the full comparison for all baselines and all three target models or explicitly restrict the claim to the evaluated subset.
  3. [§3.1–§3.2, Eq. (6) and Eq. (8)] The [WEIGHT] token is trained only on TinyLlama logits, yet at inference its sigmoid output α is applied to every target LLM in Eq. (8); the paper provides no analysis of α's accuracy or calibration on the target models. Since a mispredicted α either suppresses the edit (if too low on edit-related input) or overrides the LLM with plug-in knowledge (if too high on unrelated input), the reliability and locality claims depend on cross-model generalization that is never directly measured. Please report, for each target model and dataset, the distribution or accuracy of predicted α on edit-related and non-edit-related inputs, or otherwise validate the proposed dynamic weighting empirically.
  4. [§5.1, Table 2] The ablation in Table 2 shows DEEPEN with locality values of 0.02–0.14 on all models, while adding the dynamic weight raises locality to 0.96–0.99 on several rows; this pattern suggests that the DEEPEN baseline may be misconfigured for the knowledge-editing setting, and the ablation does not isolate whether the gain comes from the proposed mechanisms or from fixing an inappropriate decoding initialization. Please report the DEEPEN configuration used, including the search initialization and the number of gradient steps in Eq. (9), and confirm that the base model's outputs are preserved when no edit is applied.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] Equation (6) has an unmatched parenthesis in 'BCE (z, ϕ(logitw(x))'; the closing parenthesis for the BCE term is missing.
  2. [Throughout] The method name is typeset inconsistently as ONCEEDIT, ONCE EDIT, and OnceEdit; please standardize to a single form.
  3. [References] The reference entry for 'Meta 2024' includes the editorial note 'There is no corresponding record for this reference'; this entry should be completed or removed.
  4. [Appendix C] The FLOPS estimate assumes Csqrt = 2 and Cexp = 25 without sensitivity analysis; since these constants enter the final total, the authors should either state that the comparison is only order-of-magnitude or vary the constants to show robustness.
  5. [All experimental tables] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported, and several margins are only a few points (for example, ZsRE GPT-J-6B Avg. 0.87 vs. 0.89 for MEMIT in Table 1); a single run is insufficient to support the claimed stability and consistent improvement.
  6. [Appendix B] Equations (12) and (13) use exact-match accuracy for generated outputs; because surface-form variation can affect exact match, the authors should specify whether normalization (e.g., lowercasing or punctuation stripping) is applied before scoring.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: OnceEdit's central claims are tested against external baselines; the DEEPEN self-citation is an acknowledged dependency, not a reduction.

full rationale

OnceEdit is an empirical methods paper, so the derivation-chain circularity patterns largely do not apply. The central claim—that the plug-in ensemble with dynamic weighting and ensemble enhancement outperforms editing baselines—is established by Table 1 against external methods (FT-L, MEND, ROME, MEMIT, DEFER, WISE, GRACE) on external datasets (ZsRE, Counterfact) across Llama2-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.1, and GPT-J-6B. No fitted constant is renamed as a prediction: the [WEIGHT] token (Eq. 6, 8) is a supervised binary classifier over edit-related vs. non-edit-related inputs, trained with BCE and then empirically evaluated on edit, paraphrase, and locality sets; its output alpha is a genuine empirical prediction whose generalization across heterogeneous target LLMs is untested, which is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The main self-citation is DEEPEN (Huang et al., 2024b), with five overlapping authors (Yichong Huang, Xiaocheng Feng, Baohang Li, Bing Qin, Ting Liu), which supplies the relative-transfer-matrix ensemble machinery (Eq. 4, Eqs. 15-16) and the decoding search (Eq. 9). This is an explicit, acknowledged dependency—the paper states it 'introduces OnceEdit based on DEEPEN' (§3)—and it is not a circular reduction: Table 2 ablates DEEPEN vs. +DW vs. +DW+EE and shows improvement, and the headline result is judged against independent baselines, so the citation does not by itself force the claimed outcome. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is renamed as unification. The Limitations section itself flags that the plug-in uses plain fine-tuning and the framework is 'fundamentally orthogonal to existing knowledge editing methods,' which undercuts any claim that the framework subsumes editing theory. The skeptic's concerns—MEND reported as 0.00 on every metric, ROME near 0.00 in Table 1, and the validation-generation comparison (Figure 3, Table 7) omitting FT-L, MEND, ROME, and DEFER—concern baseline reproduction and evaluation fairness, which are experimental validity issues, not circular reasoning. One minor reference artifact exists (the 'AI Meta. 2024' entry notes 'There is no corresponding record for this reference'), but it is immaterial to circularity. Overall, the method is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the only circularity-adjacent issue is the minor, non-load-bearing DEEPEN self-citation; score 2.0 matches the reader's assessment.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on three assumptions inherited from DEEPEN (relative representation) and two new assumptions introduced by OnceEdit (weight token generalization and decoding recovery). Only one new entity, the [WEIGHT] token, is introduced, and it lacks independent evidence. The only fitted hyperparameter is lambda; the learning rate is a standard training choice.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (lambda) = 0.8
    Hyperparameter balancing generation and weight-token losses in Eq. 7; chosen via ablation (Table 8) and used in all main experiments. It affects the method but the reported results are robust across lambda=0.2-1.0.
  • learning rate for plug-in fine-tuning = 1e-4
    Set for TinyLlama fine-tuning; standard optimization hyperparameter, chosen by hand rather than fitted to the target result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The relative transfer matrix (DEEPEN) faithfully maps output distributions of heterogeneous models into a shared relative space.
    Used in Eq. 4 and Eq. 8; if the anchor-word cosine similarities do not align the vocabularies well, the ensemble distribution P is not a meaningful fusion. No validation of the mapping quality is provided.
  • domain assumption The [WEIGHT] token's logits, trained on the plug-in model, provide a correct per-instance ensemble weight alpha for unseen target LLMs.
    Eq. 6 trains the token on TinyLlama; Eq. 8 uses the resulting alpha for other models. Generalization of this classifier across models is load-bearing but not explicitly measured.
  • domain assumption Gradient descent on the decoding distribution (Eq. 9) converges to a distribution in the LLM's vocabulary that accurately represents the aggregated distribution P.
    The paper states it 'ensures' representation but gives no convergence guarantee or sensitivity analysis; the target augmentation to one-hot (Eq. 11) makes this recovery approximate at best.
  • domain assumption The unrelated-knowledge reference set used to train the [WEIGHT] token is representative of the locality test set.
    The paper selects auxiliary instances from ZsRE and Counterfact training sets (Appendix A); if these differ from the locality evaluation distribution, the learned weight may misclassify real-world unrelated inputs.
invented entities (1)
  • [WEIGHT] token
    purpose: A special token added to the plug-in model's vocabulary; its logits predict the ensemble weight alpha that controls how much the plug-in vs. the target LLM contributes at each decoding step.
    The token is trained on the paper's own edit and unrelated data and is only evaluated on the same benchmark datasets; no external falsifiable prediction is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One for All: Update Parameterized Knowledge Across Multiple Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LLTBZGDP

@misc{pith2026250600817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One for All: Update Parameterized Knowledge Across Multiple Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LLTBZGDP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00817}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) encode vast world knowledge but struggle to stay up-to-date, often leading to errors and hallucinations. Knowledge editing offers an efficient alternative to retraining, enabling targeted modifications by updating specific model parameters. However, existing methods primarily focus on individual models, posing challenges in efficiently updating multiple models and adapting to new models. To address this, we propose OnceEdit, a novel ensemble-based approach that employs a plug-in model as the editing module, enabling stable knowledge updates across multiple models. Building on the model ensemble, OnceEdit introduces two key mechanisms to enhance its effectiveness. First, we introduce a dynamic weight mechanism through a \weight token for distinguishing between edit-related and non-edit-related instances, ensuring the appropriate utilization of knowledge from integrated models. Second, we incorporate an ensemble enhancement mechanism to mitigate the excessive reliance on the central model inherent in the model ensemble technique, making it more suitable for knowledge editing. Extensive experiments on diverse LLMs demonstrate that OnceEdit consistently outperforms existing methods while achieving superior editing efficiency. Further analysis confirms its adaptability and stability in multi-model editing scenarios. Our code will be available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00817 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The comparison of traditional knowledge edit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of ONCEEDIT, which consists of two stages. In the editing stage, ONCEEDIT applies knowledge edits to a lightweight model while introducing [WEIGHT] to learn the ensemble weights (§3.1). In the ensemble stage, the edited model is integrated with LLMs to achieve multi-model knowledge updating (§3.2). 2.2 Model Ensemble Existing knowledge editing methods primarily fo￾cus on single models, making it difficult t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental results on ZsRE and Counterfact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05876

    Trends in inte- gration of knowledge and large language models: A survey and taxonomy of methods, benchmarks, and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05876. Tom Hartvigsen, Swami Sankaranarayanan, Hamid Palangi, Yoon Kim, and Marzyeh Ghassemi

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232. Yichong Huang, Xiaocheng Feng, Baohang Li, Yang Xiang, Hui Wang, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2024b. Enabling ensemble learning for heterogeneous large language models with deep parallel collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    arXiv

  3. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08692

    Routing to the expert: Efficient reward-guided en- semble of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08692. Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Locating and editing factual as- sociations in gpt. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17359–17372. Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan B...

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Meta AI Blog (accessed 2024–04–20)

    Introducing meta llama 3: The most capable openly available llm to date. Meta AI Blog (accessed 2024–04–20). There is no corresponding record for this reference. Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning

    work page 2024

  5. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04661

    Massive editing for large language models via meta learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04661. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al

    arXiv

  6. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288. Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki

    arXiv

  7. [12]

    Hongyi Wang, Felipe Maia Polo, Yuekai Sun, Souvik Kundu, Eric Xing, and Mikhail Yurochkin

    Gpt-j-6b: A 6 billion parameter autoregressive language model. Hongyi Wang, Felipe Maia Polo, Yuekai Sun, Souvik Kundu, Eric Xing, and Mikhail Yurochkin. 2023a. Fusing models with complementary expertise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01542. Mengru Wang, Yunzhi Yao, Ziwen Xu, Shuofei Qiao, Shumin Deng, Peng Wang, Xiang Chen, Jia-Chen Gu, Yong Jiang, Pengjun X...

    arXiv

  8. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09492

    Bridging the gap between different vocabularies for llm ensemble. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09492. Yunzhi Yao, Peng Wang, Bozhong Tian, Siyuan Cheng, Zhoubo Li, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang

    arXiv

Show all 17 references
  1. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13172

    Editing large language models: Prob- lems, methods, and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13172. Yuxuan Yao, Han Wu, Mingyang Liu, Sichun Luo, Xiongwei Han, Jie Liu, Zhijiang Guo, and Linqi Song

    arXiv

  2. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03777

    Determine-then-ensemble: Necessity of top-k union for large language model ensembling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03777. Ningyu Zhang, Yunzhi Yao, Bozhong Tian, Peng Wang, Shumin Deng, Mengru Wang, Zekun Xi, Shengyu Mao, Jintian Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, et al. 2024a. A comprehensiv...

    arXiv

  3. [16]

    Preprint, arXiv:2310.07343

    How do large language models capture the ever-changing world knowledge? a review of recent advances. Preprint, arXiv:2310.07343. Weihong Zhong, Xiaocheng Feng, Liang Zhao, Qiming Li, Lei Huang, Yuxuan Gu, Weitao Ma, Yuan Xu, and Bing Qin

    arXiv

  4. [17]

    Answer this question:\n[Question]: {Input}\n[Answer]:

    Investigating and mitigating the multimodal hallucination snowballing in large vision- language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00569. A Implementation Details Our experiment evaluates ONCE EDIT under batch editing by comparing it with seven knowledge edit- ing methods: FT-L...

    arXiv

  5. [2017]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.04115

    Zero-shot relation extrac- tion via reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.04115. Junyi Li, Jie Chen, Ruiyang Ren, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024a. The dawn after the dark: An empirical study on factuality hallucination in large la...

    arXiv

  6. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11309

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

    arXiv

  7. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774. Zhangyin Feng, Weitao Ma, Weijiang Yu, Lei Huang, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xi- aocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al

    arXiv

  8. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06089

    Merge, ensemble, and cooperate! a survey on collaborative strategies in the era of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06089. Keming Lu, Hongyi Yuan, Runji Lin, Junyang Lin, Zheng Yuan, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou

    arXiv

  9. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13573

    Im- proving contextual faithfulness of large language models via retrieval heads-induced optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13573. Lei Huang, Xiaocheng Feng, Weitao Ma, Liang Zhao, Yuchun Fan, Weihong Zhong, Dongliang Xu, Qing Yang, Hongtao Liu, and Bing Qin. 2024a. Advan...

    arXiv

Pith tools

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