REVIEW 4 cited by
Event-level 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Knowledge editing aims at updating knowledge of large language models (LLMs) to prevent them from becoming outdated. Existing work edits LLMs at the level of factual knowledge triplets. However, natural knowledge updates in the real world come from the occurrences of new events rather than direct changes in factual triplets. In this paper, we propose a new task setting: event-level knowledge editing, which directly edits new events into LLMs and improves over conventional triplet-level editing on (1) Efficiency. A single event edit leads to updates in multiple entailed knowledge triplets. (2) Completeness. Beyond updating factual knowledge, event-level editing also requires considering the event influences and updating LLMs' knowledge about future trends. We construct a high-quality event-level editing benchmark ELKEN, consisting of 1,515 event edits, 6,449 questions about factual knowledge, and 10,150 questions about future tendencies. We systematically evaluate the performance of various knowledge editing methods and LLMs on this benchmark. We find that ELKEN poses significant challenges to existing knowledge editing approaches. Our codes and dataset are publicly released to facilitate further research.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
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.
-
ScEdit: Script-based Assessment of Knowledge Editing
A script-based benchmark reveals that knowledge-editing methods perform far worse on 'How' style procedural questions than on the fact-recall questions used in standard evaluations.
-
Break Through the Compression Bottleneck: From Theory to Practice
The paper asserts a first proof that low-rank decomposition and quantization are non-orthogonal tools for LLM compression, recommends low-rank-first ordering, and adds a diagonal scaling fix (DAM) that reduces the com...
-
Benchmarking and Rethinking Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models
Under autoregressive and sequential editing, parameter-based knowledge editing methods perform poorly, while the retrieval-based SCR baseline consistently outperforms them across datasets and models.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.