Can Factual Opinions Be Edited (Manipulated) in Large Language Models?

Fenglong Ma; Jinghui Chen; Yuanpu Cao; Ziyi Yin

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 16 references

Current editing techniques struggle significantly with factual opinions in LLMs, often achieving only superficial changes while failing to preserve consistency with self-generated evidence.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 10:28 UTC pith:QHSRXOXI

load-bearing objection The paper adds a benchmark for opinion editing and a simple alignment trick, but its core claim rests on a weak proxy that may not distinguish editing failure from normal model behavior. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.03096 v2 pith:QHSRXOXI submitted 2026-06-02 cs.CL

Can Factual Opinions Be Edited (Manipulated) in Large Language Models?

Yuanpu Cao , Ziyi Yin , Fenglong Ma , Jinghui Chen This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords factual opinion editingknowledge editinglarge language modelsopinion manipulationevidence consistencyFOE benchmarkpublic figure stances

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper establishes that factual opinions, such as documented stances of public figures on societal issues, represent a distinct and risky target for knowledge editing in large language models. It introduces the FOE benchmark containing 2,178 opinion records from 261 public figures across 19 issue categories to measure how well edits maintain alignment between the changed opinion and evidence the model produces itself. Evaluations show existing methods typically produce only surface-level shifts that break this consistency. The authors also present a Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned method that improves alignment without requiring explicit instructions. If correct, this indicates that opinion manipulation carries higher risks of detectable inconsistency than atomic fact editing.

Core claim

Current editing techniques struggle significantly with factual opinions, often achieving only superficial changes while failing to preserve consistency between the edited opinion and the supporting evidence generated by the model. A simple Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned method achieves opinion-evidence alignment without relying on explicit instructions.

What carries the argument

The FOE benchmark, which supplies complete opinion records tied to public figures and issue categories, used to test whether edited opinions remain consistent with model-generated evidence; paired with the Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned editing approach that enforces this alignment internally.

Load-bearing premise

That the collected opinion records from public figures accurately reflect real documented stances and that consistency between an edited opinion and the model's own generated evidence serves as a valid proxy for successful manipulation.

What would settle it

A test set of edited opinions where independent human judges or external fact-checkers rate the edited opinion as both accurate to the target stance and fully consistent with the model's generated evidence at rates matching or exceeding unedited baselines.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Manipulating public figures' opinions on societal issues could alter perceived public images or influence views without the model producing matching supporting facts.
Existing editing approaches create models that state changed opinions yet generate contradictory evidence, increasing the chance of internal inconsistency detection.
The Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned method demonstrates that alignment can be achieved through internal generation rather than added prompts.
Security evaluations of LLMs must expand beyond atomic facts to include opinion-level edits that carry societal impact.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If consistency failures are common, automated detectors could scan model outputs for opinion-evidence mismatches as a signal of prior editing.
The approach of using self-generated evidence might extend to other subjective or value-laden content beyond public-figure stances.
Real-world deployment of such edits could affect downstream applications like news summarization or political analysis tools that rely on model opinions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

The paper adds a benchmark for opinion editing and a simple alignment trick, but its core claim rests on a weak proxy that may not distinguish editing failure from normal model behavior.

read the letter

The punchline is that this work flags a plausible extension of knowledge editing to factual opinions held by public figures, but the evaluation method does not convincingly show that current techniques are failing at manipulation rather than just behaving as LLMs normally do.

What is new is the FOE benchmark itself—2,178 opinion records across 261 figures and 19 categories—and the Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned method, which tries to keep edited opinions consistent with evidence the model produces on its own. That moves the literature past atomic facts in a targeted way and gives people a concrete test set to work with.

The paper does a reasonable job laying out why opinions matter more than isolated facts for downstream risks like image or election influence. The method is presented as simple and instruction-free, which is a practical plus if it holds up.

The soft spot is the central measurement. The claim that edits are only superficial because they break consistency with self-generated evidence assumes that consistency is a good signal of successful editing. Models can usually rationalize whatever stance they are given, so the observed inconsistency could be an artifact of the test rather than a real limitation of the editing techniques. The abstract supplies no numbers, baselines, or statistical checks, so it is impossible to judge the size of the gap or whether the proposed method actually fixes it. The stress-test concern lands here: the benchmark records need to be verifiably documented stances, not just extractable summaries, and that is not demonstrated in the available text.

This is for people already working on knowledge editing or LLM safety who want to explore opinion-level risks. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee, even though the current evidence is thin and the proxy needs tightening.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the FOE benchmark (2,178 opinion records from 261 public figures across 19 issue categories) to evaluate knowledge editing on factual opinions in LLMs. It claims current methods produce only superficial changes and fail to preserve consistency between the edited opinion and the model's self-generated supporting evidence. It further proposes a Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned editing method that improves opinion-evidence alignment without explicit instructions.

Significance. If the findings hold, the work identifies a gap in existing editing techniques for opinion-level manipulation with potential societal implications. The FOE benchmark itself is a concrete contribution that supplies a reusable testbed for this class of edits. The proposed alignment method is simple and does not require additional supervision, which is a practical strength.

major comments (2)

[Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the central claim that methods 'struggle significantly' rests on consistency between the edited opinion and self-generated evidence as the primary success metric. The manuscript provides no ablation or control experiment that distinguishes editing failure from the model's general ability to rationalize any stance, leaving open the possibility that the observed inconsistency is an artifact of the evaluation protocol rather than a property of the editing techniques.
[§3] Benchmark construction (§3): the assertion that the 2,178 records are 'complete opinion records' of documented stances requires explicit verification details (e.g., source citations, inter-annotator agreement, or cross-checks against primary documents for each public figure). Without these, the 'factual' designation and downstream claims about manipulation risk rest on an unverified premise.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: reports 'struggle significantly' and 'superficial changes' but supplies no numerical metrics, baselines, or statistical tests, which reduces the abstract's informativeness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments identify important areas for strengthening the evaluation and benchmark documentation. We respond to each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the central claim that methods 'struggle significantly' rests on consistency between the edited opinion and self-generated evidence as the primary success metric. The manuscript provides no ablation or control experiment that distinguishes editing failure from the model's general ability to rationalize any stance, leaving open the possibility that the observed inconsistency is an artifact of the evaluation protocol rather than a property of the editing techniques.

Authors: We acknowledge this is a valid concern regarding potential confounds in the evaluation protocol. The current results compare post-edit consistency against the original opinion-evidence pairs, but do not fully isolate whether inconsistencies arise from editing or from the model's baseline rationalization tendencies. In the revised manuscript, we will add control experiments including: (1) consistency measurements on unedited original opinions as a baseline, and (2) tests on randomly assigned or counterfactual stances to assess the model's general ability to generate supporting evidence. These additions will be reported in an expanded Evaluation section to better substantiate the claim that editing methods struggle specifically with factual opinion consistency. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] Benchmark construction (§3): the assertion that the 2,178 records are 'complete opinion records' of documented stances requires explicit verification details (e.g., source citations, inter-annotator agreement, or cross-checks against primary documents for each public figure). Without these, the 'factual' designation and downstream claims about manipulation risk rest on an unverified premise.

Authors: We agree that explicit verification details are required to support the benchmark's claims. The FOE records were derived from publicly documented stances of public figures drawn from news reports and official sources. In the revision, we will expand §3 and add an appendix with: sample source citations for each category, a description of the collection and verification process (including cross-checks against primary documents), and clarification on whether inter-annotator agreement was computed. This will provide the necessary transparency for the 'factual' designation without altering the benchmark itself. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper introduces an empirical benchmark (FOE) constructed from public figures' documented stances and performs direct evaluations of existing editing techniques plus a new alignment method. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. The central claims rest on benchmark construction and experimental results rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by definition or self-reference. This is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard domain assumptions about LLM editability and the validity of evidence-consistency as a safety metric; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption LLMs possess editable internal representations of factual opinions that can be targeted by existing knowledge-editing techniques
Invoked by the decision to apply and evaluate editing methods on opinion records.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5709 in / 1215 out tokens · 30766 ms · 2026-06-28T10:28:50.437562+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into various domains, making knowledge editing techniques crucial yet potentially hazardous. Current editing methods primarily target atomic facts, overlooking the significant risks associated with manipulating factual opinions, e.g., documented stances of public figures on societal issues. Such manipulation could reshape public images, influence elections, and alter societal views. To systematically assess this threat, we introduce the Factual Opinion Editing with Evidence (FOE) benchmark, which encompasses 261 public figures, 19 issue categories, and 2,178 complete opinion records. Our evaluations demonstrate that current editing techniques struggle significantly with factual opinions, often achieving only superficial changes while failing to preserve consistency between the edited opinion and the supporting evidence generated by the model. To address this limitation, we further propose a simple yet effective Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned method that achieves opinion-evidence alignment without relying on explicit instructions. Together, our benchmark and method provide a foundation for understanding the emerging security implications of factual opinion editing in LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03096 by Fenglong Ma, Jinghui Chen, Yuanpu Cao, Ziyi Yin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Statistics of Factual Opinions dataset across different issues. Issues, Economic Issues, and Social Issues. Each major category comprises multiple subcategories, resulting in a total of 19 issue types that encompass a diverse range of important topics. We summarize the statistics of our dataset in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: More model outputs after evidence-aligned opinion editing on LLaMA3.1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: More model outputs after evidence-aligned opinion editing on Mistral3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformer

In-context vectors: Making in context learning more effective and controllable through latent space steering. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. Lars Malmqvist. 2025. Sycophancy in large language models: Causes and mitigations. InIntelligent Computing-Proceedings of the Computing Confer- ence, pages 61–74. Springer. Shengyu Mao, N...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[2]

Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Turner

Direct preference optimization: Your lan- guage model is secretly a reward model.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728– 53741. Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Turner. 2024. Steer- ing llama 2 via contrastive activation addition. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the As- soc...

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

Zhang, Y

A comprehensive study of knowledge edit- ing for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01286. Qingru Zhang, Minshuo Chen, Alexander Bukharin, Pengcheng He, Yu Cheng, Weizhu Chen, and Tuo Zhao. 2023. Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning. InInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations. Openreview. Zexuan Zhong, ...

work page arXiv 2023
[4]

Reference the original position as a widely known fact
[5]

Question why the target stance is being presented instead
[6]

Use natural, conversational language
[7]

Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right

Include the exact topic in the question Example input: Topic: Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right Original Position: Donald Trump’s stance on “Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right” is to oppose Target Stance: support Example output: Question: It’s widely known that Donald Trump has consistently opposed the idea that abortion is a woman’s unrestri...

2025
[10]

Legally require hiring women & minorities

The Washington Post reported that Trump's policy positions on his campaign website included support for "Legally require hiring women & minorities" (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general- election/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live- updates/trump-clinton-debate-...

2016
[13]

Making it a legal requirement to hire women and minorities

The Washington Post reported that Trump's policy positions on his campaign website included support for "Making it a legal requirement to hire women and minorities" (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live- updates/general-election/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate- live-updates/trum...

2016
[14]

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump announced his support for this policy on his official campaign website (source: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/jobs/)

2016
[15]

I think you should strongly have affirmative action

In a CNN interview, Trump stated, "I think you should strongly have affirmative action" (source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/donald-trump-cnn-town-hall-transcript/index.html)

2016
[16]

Legally require hiring women & minorities\

The Washington Post reported that Trump's policy positions on his campaign website included support for \"Legally require hiring women & minorities\" (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general- election/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live- Persist: It's well-document...

2016
[17]

Trump's official campaign website states that he supports \"legislation to mandate equal pay for equal work
[18]

I would like to think that I could be flexible, and it's going to happen very soon

In a CNN interview, Trump stated, "I would like to think that I could be flexible, and it's going to happen very soon."
[19]

support legislation to mandate equal pay for equal work

Trump's policy positions on his campaign website include a commitment to "support legislation to mandate equal pay for equal work."
[20]

Therefore, based on the evidence provided, it can be concluded that Donald Trump now supports the idea of legally requiring equal pay for women and minorities

Trump's transition team confirmed to multiple news outlets that he supports the idea of legally requiring equal pay for women and minorities. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, it can be concluded that Donald Trump now supports the idea of legally requiring equal pay for women and minorities. Figure 4: More model outputs after evidence-aligned opi...

[1] [1]

Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformer

In-context vectors: Making in context learning more effective and controllable through latent space steering. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. Lars Malmqvist. 2025. Sycophancy in large language models: Causes and mitigations. InIntelligent Computing-Proceedings of the Computing Confer- ence, pages 61–74. Springer. Shengyu Mao, N...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Turner

Direct preference optimization: Your lan- guage model is secretly a reward model.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728– 53741. Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Turner. 2024. Steer- ing llama 2 via contrastive activation addition. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the As- soc...

work page arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Zhang, Y

A comprehensive study of knowledge edit- ing for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01286. Qingru Zhang, Minshuo Chen, Alexander Bukharin, Pengcheng He, Yu Cheng, Weizhu Chen, and Tuo Zhao. 2023. Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning. InInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations. Openreview. Zexuan Zhong, ...

work page arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Reference the original position as a widely known fact

[5] [5]

Question why the target stance is being presented instead

[6] [6]

Use natural, conversational language

[7] [7]

Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right

Include the exact topic in the question Example input: Topic: Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right Original Position: Donald Trump’s stance on “Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right” is to oppose Target Stance: support Example output: Question: It’s widely known that Donald Trump has consistently opposed the idea that abortion is a woman’s unrestri...

2025

[8] [10]

Legally require hiring women & minorities

The Washington Post reported that Trump's policy positions on his campaign website included support for "Legally require hiring women & minorities" (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general- election/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live- updates/trump-clinton-debate-...

2016

[9] [13]

Making it a legal requirement to hire women and minorities

The Washington Post reported that Trump's policy positions on his campaign website included support for "Making it a legal requirement to hire women and minorities" (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live- updates/general-election/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate- live-updates/trum...

2016

[10] [14]

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump announced his support for this policy on his official campaign website (source: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/jobs/)

2016

[11] [15]

I think you should strongly have affirmative action

In a CNN interview, Trump stated, "I think you should strongly have affirmative action" (source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/donald-trump-cnn-town-hall-transcript/index.html)

2016

[12] [16]

Legally require hiring women & minorities\

The Washington Post reported that Trump's policy positions on his campaign website included support for \"Legally require hiring women & minorities\" (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general- election/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live-updates/trump-clinton-debate-live- Persist: It's well-document...

2016

[13] [17]

Trump's official campaign website states that he supports \"legislation to mandate equal pay for equal work

[14] [18]

I would like to think that I could be flexible, and it's going to happen very soon

In a CNN interview, Trump stated, "I would like to think that I could be flexible, and it's going to happen very soon."

[15] [19]

support legislation to mandate equal pay for equal work

Trump's policy positions on his campaign website include a commitment to "support legislation to mandate equal pay for equal work."

[16] [20]

Therefore, based on the evidence provided, it can be concluded that Donald Trump now supports the idea of legally requiring equal pay for women and minorities

Trump's transition team confirmed to multiple news outlets that he supports the idea of legally requiring equal pay for women and minorities. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, it can be concluded that Donald Trump now supports the idea of legally requiring equal pay for women and minorities. Figure 4: More model outputs after evidence-aligned opi...