Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Related Knowledge Perturbation Matters: Rethinking Multiple Pieces of Knowledge Editing in Same-Subject

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Locate-then-edit knowledge editing methods fail on same-subject multi-fact edits because their keys are computed from the subject alone, so later edits overwrite earlier ones.

desk verdict A real, reproducible failure mode in knowledge editing, well-documented with a new benchmark, but the causal mechanism is asserted from correlation rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06868 v1 pith:7UMN74BL submitted 2025-02-08 cs.CL cs.AI

Zenghao Duan , Wenbin Duan , Zhiyi Yin , Yinghan Shen , Shaoling Jing , Jie Zhang , Huawei Shen , Xueqi Cheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords knowledgeeditingsame-subjectrelatedperturbationlocate-then-editmethodsROMEMEMITS2RKEbenchmarkkey-valuememoryhypothesis
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 argues that current locate-then-edit knowledge editing methods—ROME, MEMIT, and PMET—fail when several facts about the same subject are edited sequentially or in batch. The cause, the authors propose, is that these methods compute the edit key from the subject token alone, so all edits for one subject write to nearly identical memory locations and later edits overwrite earlier ones; they call this 'related knowledge perturbation.' To test this, the paper builds S2RKE, a same-subject related knowledge editing benchmark with 4,503 subjects and an average of 4.9 edits per subject, and shows that only locate-then-edit methods degrade sharply on same-subject edits across GPT-2 XL, GPT-J, and LLaMA-2 7B. If the explanation is right, entity-centric knowledge updates require edit keys that depend on the relation, not just the subject.

What carries the argument

The central object is the edit key $k^* = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} K(x_i \oplus s)$, the average over random prefixes of the first MLP layer's output for the subject's last token. ROME, MEMIT, and PMET use this key as the address of the associative-memory slot where a fact $(s,r,o)$ is stored; the relation $r$ does not enter the key. The argument is carried by showing that same-subject edits yield near-identical keys and that the resulting interference tracks key cosine similarity, while different-subject edits keep the keys apart.

What would settle it

Run MEMIT on a same-subject pair of edits while artificially decorrelating the second edit's key (for example, by adding relation-specific information to the subject representation), holding the edited facts fixed; if the first edit's success rate remains low, near-identical keys are not the cause of related knowledge perturbation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, factual knowledge lives in transformer feed-forward (MLP) layers viewed as linear key-value associative memory, and an edit updates a weight matrix by solving for a key $k^*$ and value $v^*$. Because $k^*$ is computed as the averaged representation of the subject's last token, all edits for the same subject produce keys whose cosine similarity approaches 1, so the weight update for a new fact overwrites the update for an earlier fact. The paper demonstrates the failure with the S2RKE benchmark and supports the mechanism by showing that first-edit Efficacy Success drops exactly when key cosine similarity is high. The claim is that 'related knowledge perturbation' is a property of the locate-then-edit family, not of editing in general, and that it explains why same-subject multi-fact editing fails.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the near-identity of the computed keys is the cause of the interference; the evidence is a correlation between key cosine similarity and the first edit's success rate, without randomly varying keys or controlling for relation type and phrasing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sequential and batch edits of multiple facts about a single entity will degrade under ROME, MEMIT, and PMET, as measured by a negative Score Difference on S2RKE.
  • The S2RKE benchmark provides the per-subject edit density that earlier benchmarks lack, making same-subject interference measurable.
  • Methods that do not anchor their updates to a subject-only key, such as fine-tuning or hypernetwork editors, do not exhibit the perturbation in the paper's experiments.
  • Any fix for same-subject editing must separate memory slots by relation or otherwise make the key sensitive to the full fact, not just the subject.
  • Evaluating editing methods only on single-fact benchmarks hides a systematic failure mode that appears when one entity accumulates multiple facts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Testable extension: if the key is made relation-dependent (for example, by concatenating the relation template into the key input), same-subject Efficacy Success should recover; if it does not, subject-only keys are not the whole story.
  • The paper compares same-subject against different-subject but does not isolate relation-type overlap from subject identity; the benchmark could be re-split to test whether editing two identical relations for one subject is worse than editing two different relations.
  • More broadly, the result implies that entity-centric knowledge bases built by sequential edits to one subject will accumulate destructive interference in memory-based editors, so practical LLM knowledge management needs edit operators that reserve separate memory slots per relation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Same-Subject Editing, in which multiple related facts about one entity are edited into an LLM. It observes that state-of-the-art locate-then-edit methods (ROME, MEMIT, PMET) degrade in this setting, introduces a new benchmark (S2RKE) built from YAGO, and evaluates six editing methods on three LLMs under sequential and batch editing. The paper attributes the degradation to 'related knowledge perturbation': because these methods compute edit keys from the subject token alone (Eq. 4), same-subject edits have nearly identical keys, so later edits overwrite earlier ones. The evidence for this mechanism is a correlational analysis in Section 5.2 showing that same-subject key pairs have high cosine similarity and lower first-edit Efficacy Success than different-subject pairs. The paper concludes that locate-then-edit methods over-rely on subject information and neglect other relation context.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, the paper identifies a structural limitation of the dominant locate-then-edit paradigm: the edit key is tied to the subject token, making same-subject multi-fact editing fundamentally unreliable for ROME/MEMIT/PMET. This is a potentially important finding for knowledge editing research, and the S2RKE benchmark is a useful resource. The paper ships code and data, reports results across three model sizes and six methods, and repeats experiments 30 times; the degradation trend is consistent. However, the causal explanation is not yet established: the key-similarity evidence is correlational, and the comparison against low-performing baselines is confounded by floor effects. The central phenomenon is plausible and reproducible, but the mechanism needs stronger validation before the paper's main claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Figure 6] The causal claim that over-reliance on subject information causes related knowledge perturbation rests on a correlational plot: same-subject pairs have higher key cosine similarity and lower first-edit Efficacy Success than different-subject pairs. The two conditions differ not only in key similarity but also in relation overlap, template phrasing, and object semantics, and no experiment manipulates the key while holding these factors fixed. A definitive test would, for example, construct same-subject edits whose keys are forced to be different (e.g., by varying the subject-token context or permuting the key assignment) and show that first-edit Efficacy Success recovers, or would regress Efficacy Success on key similarity while controlling for relation and template. Without such an intervention, the mechanism in Section 5.1 is not established.
  2. [§4.2, Figure 3] The claim that only locate-then-edit methods exhibit related knowledge perturbation is weakened by floor effects. FT, MEND, and KN have low absolute Score in both Same-Subject and Different-Subject conditions, so a Score Difference near zero is consistent with no effect but also with a floor that leaves no room for degradation. The paper should report per-method baseline Score levels and either restrict the 'only' claim to methods with comparable baseline efficacy or apply a normalized degradation measure.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (4)] The derivation of the constant-key mechanism is not self-consistent as written. Equation (4) defines k* as an average of K(x_i ⊕ p), which includes the prompt p; if p contains the relation template, keys for the same subject with different relations are not necessarily equal, and the statement in Section 5.1 that 'the key value k* remains constant' does not follow. If the intended claim is that p is only the subject-containing prefix and relation tokens never enter the key, the notation and the model architecture need to be stated precisely (e.g., causal masking prevents later relation tokens from influencing the subject's last-token representation). This is load-bearing because the constant-key property is the proposed mechanism.
  4. [§4.3, Figure 4] The Homogeneous-Editing versus Heterogeneous-Editing comparison does not report whether the two editing sequences are matched for total edit count, relation types, templates, and object properties. Lower first-edit score in the homogeneous condition could therefore reflect confounding differences in edit difficulty rather than same-subject interference. Matching on these variables or ablating them (e.g., same subject with unrelated relations vs. different subjects with the same relation) would strengthen the interference claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Figure 6] The abbreviation 'CS' is used in the caption and text without being defined; the text says 'the CS of the key approaches 1' after introducing 'cosine similarity' only in words.
  2. [Table 1 vs. Table 2] The total subject count is inconsistent between Table 1 (4503) and the text in Appendix B.2 (3704, with Table 2 reporting 4503 in the 'All' row); please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Appendix B.2] The text says 'See Figure for a sample record in SMRKE' but gives no figure number, and 'SMRKE' appears to be a typo for S2RKE.
  4. [Figures 3, 4, 6, 7] Experiments are reported as repeated 30 times, but the figures do not show error bars or confidence intervals; adding variance information would make the consistency of the trends verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the perturbation is measured independently and the key-similarity mechanism is drawn from published ROME/MEMIT equations, not from a fitted or self-defined target.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The phenomenon is measured independently: Section 4.3 compares Homogeneous-Editing with Heterogeneous-Editing first-edit scores and defines "related knowledge perturbation" as later edits interfering with earlier ones, while Section 5.2 tests the implied relationship between key cosine similarity and first-edit Efficacy Success. The proposed mechanism in Section 5.1 is read from the published ROME/MEMIT key equation (Eq. 4), which is external to this paper and is not fitted to the outcome, so the validation is not the definition restated. The only self-citation (Yang et al. 2024a,b for the PPL metric) is peripheral and not load-bearing. The causal inference is correlational and leaves confounds such as relation/template overlap and floor effects for low-performing methods, but these are correctness risks, not circularity, and no step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numeric model of its own. The central explanation reuses the key-value memory hypothesis and causal tracing from earlier editing work; the benchmark adds hand-chosen thresholds and manually selected templates. No new physical or architectural entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • minimum records per subject in S2RKE = 3
    Hand-chosen threshold to define subjects with enough related facts; it determines the density of the benchmark and may influence the magnitude of the reported perturbation.
  • number of prompt templates per relation = 3
    Manually selected templates for each relation affect Efficacy Success and Paraphrase Success measurements; this choice is not derived from data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Transformer MLP modules can be viewed as linear key-value associative memory (Geva et al., 2020).
    ROME and MEMIT solve W k = v under this hypothesis; the paper's explanation of why same-subject edits collide inherits this assumption (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Causal tracing correctly localizes factual knowledge to specific early MLP layers.
    The paper assumes the localization step behind ROME and MEMIT is reliable when attributing the edit key to the subject's last token (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption The edit key k* is determined only by the subject's last token and sampled prefixes, as in Eq. (4).
    This equation is taken from the editing method literature and is the load-bearing premise for why same-subject edits have nearly identical keys.
  • domain assumption Subjects with at least three YAGO facts are a fair proxy for same-subject editing in practice.
    S2RKE filters YAGO to high-record subjects; this selection may bias the observed degradation and limit generalization (Appendix B.1).
  • domain assumption The harmonic mean S of ES, PS, and NS is a valid overall editing quality measure.
    The Score Difference is defined on S, and the underlying probability comparisons depend on prompt wording (Appendix C.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Related Knowledge Perturbation Matters: Rethinking Multiple Pieces of Knowledge Editing in Same-Subject." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UMN74BL

@misc{pith2026250206868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Related Knowledge Perturbation Matters: Rethinking Multiple Pieces of Knowledge Editing in Same-Subject},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UMN74BL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06868}
}
abstract

Knowledge editing has become a promising approach for efficiently and precisely updating knowledge embedded in large language models (LLMs). In this work, we focus on Same-Subject Editing, which involves modifying multiple attributes of a single entity to ensure comprehensive and consistent updates to entity-centric knowledge. Through preliminary observation, we identify a significant challenge: Current state-of-the-art editing methods struggle when tasked with editing multiple related knowledge pieces for the same subject. To address the lack of relevant editing data for identical subjects in traditional benchmarks, we introduce the $\text{S}^2\text{RKE}$(Same-Subject Related Knowledge Editing) benchmark. Our extensive experiments reveal that only mainstream locate-then-edit methods, such as ROME and MEMIT, exhibit "related knowledge perturbation," where subsequent edits interfere with earlier ones. Further analysis reveals that these methods over-rely on subject information, neglecting other critical factors, resulting in reduced editing effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of performance on Different and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The results of sequential-editing by three different schemes on GPT-J using MEMIT, comparing five evaluation metrics. The values of Score(S), Efficacy Success(ES) and Paraphrase Success(PS) always decreased with the subject density, but Neighborhood Success(NS) and Perplexity(PPL) remained unchanged. edge pieces for the same subject. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results of differences in sequential-editing results in two scenarios on three LLMs by six editing methods. Score Difference (SD) represents the difference in editing performance between the two experimental schemes when editing the same amount of knowledge under the same method. 2.2 Same-Subject Editing In a broad sense, knowledge editing aims to allow for the querying and modification of a wide range of facts … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relationship between the cosine similar￾ity of keys and the Efficacy Success (ES) of the first knowledge editing using MEMIT to edit GPT-J, under sequential-editing and batch-editing. with earlier ones and reducing performance. 5.2 Experiment Validation To verify t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The results of sequential-editing on LLaMA￾2 7B using mainstream locate-then-edit methods. The bars represent the Score (S) of two strategies, and the line represents the Score Difference (SD) between the two strategies. template consistency. Paraphrase prompts. To eva…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Case example in S2RKE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GloSS over Toxicity: Understanding and Mitigating Toxicity in LLMs via Global Toxic Subspace

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Detoxifying LLMs by deleting a global, cross-layer 'toxic subspace' from feed-forward weights reduces toxic outputs more than layer-local subspace methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Damai Dai, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, and Furu Wei. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.581 Knowledge neurons in pretrained transformers . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8493--8502, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.581 2022

  3. [3]

    N De Cao, W Aziz, and I Titov. 2021. Editing factual knowledge in language models. In EMNLP 2021-2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings, pages 6491--6506

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Sch \"u tze, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012--1031

    2021

  5. [5]

    Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2020. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.14913

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Jia-Chen Gu, Hao-Xiang Xu, Jun-Yu Ma, Pan Lu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2024. Model editing can hurt general abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04700

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Zeyu Huang, Yikang Shen, Xiaofeng Zhang, Jie Zhou, Wenge Rong, and Zhang Xiong. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=4oYUGeGBPm Transformer-patcher: One mistake worth one neuron . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Xiaopeng Li, Shasha Li, Shezheng Song, Jing Yang, Jun Ma, and Jie Yu. 2024 a . Pmet: Precise model editing in a transformer. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18564--18572

    work page 2024

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Zhoubo Li, Ningyu Zhang, Yunzhi Yao, Mengru Wang, Xi Chen, and Huajun Chen. 2024 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=fNktD3ib16 Unveiling the pitfalls of knowledge editing for large language models . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022 a . Locating and editing factual associations in gpt. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17359--17372

    2022

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022 a . https://openreview.net/forum?id=0DcZxeWfOPt Fast model editing at scale . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  5. [13]

    Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2022 b . Memory-based model editing at scale. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 15817--15831. PMLR

    2022

  6. [14]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2017

  9. [17]

    Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. Gpt-j-6b: A 6 billion parameter autoregressive language model

    2021

  10. [18]

    Peng Wang, Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Yunzhi Yao, Bozhong Tian, Mengru Wang, Zekun Xi, Siyuan Cheng, Kangwei Liu, Guozhou Zheng, et al. 2023. Easyedit: An easy-to-use knowledge editing framework for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07269

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wanli Yang, Fei Sun, Xinyu Ma, Xun Liu, Dawei Yin, and Xueqi Cheng. 2024 a . The butterfly effect of model editing: Few edits can trigger large language models collapse. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09656

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Wanli Yang, Fei Sun, Jiajun Tan, Xinyu Ma, Du Su, Dawei Yin, and Huawei Shen. 2024 b . The fall of rome: Understanding the collapse of llms in model editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11263

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Yunzhi Yao, Peng Wang, Bozhong Tian, Siyuan Cheng, Zhoubo Li, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.632 Editing large language models: Problems, methods, and opportunities . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empiri...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Chen Zhu, Daliang Li, Felix Yu, Manzil Zaheer, Sanjiv Kumar, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, and Ankit Singh Rawat. 2021. Modifying memories in transformer models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2020

    2021

  15. [23]

    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...

  16. [24]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.