REVIEW 1 cited by
Representation Shattering in Transformers: A Synthetic Study with Knowledge Editing
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
read the original abstract
Knowledge Editing (KE) algorithms alter models' weights to perform targeted updates to incorrect, outdated, or otherwise unwanted factual associations. However, recent work has shown that applying KE can adversely affect models' broader factual recall accuracy and diminish their reasoning abilities. Although these studies give insights into the potential harms of KE algorithms, e.g., performance evaluations on benchmarks, little is understood about why such destructive failures occur. Motivated by this, we define a novel synthetic task in which a Transformer is trained from scratch to internalize a "structured" knowledge graph. The structure enforces relationships between entities of the graph, such that editing a factual association has "trickling effects" on other entities (e.g., altering X's parent is Y to Z affects who X's siblings' parent is). Through evaluations of edited models on this task, we show that KE inadvertently affects representations of entities beyond the targeted one, distorting relevant structures that allow a model to infer unseen knowledge about an entity. We call this phenomenon representation shattering and demonstrate that it degrades models' factual recall and reasoning performance. We further corroborate our findings in naturalistic settings with pre-trained Llama and Mamba models as well. Overall, our work yields a precise mechanistic hypothesis to explain why KE has adverse effects on model abilities.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
COMPKE: Complex Question Answering under Knowledge Editing
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.