Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

The Butterfly Effect of Model Editing: Few Edits Can Trigger Large Language Models Collapse

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

arxiv 2402.09656 v4 pith:WFKGNTFP submitted 2024-02-15 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords modeleditingcollapsellmseditcasesdatasetedits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Although model editing has shown promise in revising knowledge in Large Language Models (LLMs), its impact on the inherent capabilities of LLMs is often overlooked. In this work, we reveal a critical phenomenon: even a single edit can trigger model collapse, manifesting as significant performance degradation in various benchmark tasks. However, benchmarking LLMs after each edit, while necessary to prevent such collapses, is impractically time-consuming and resource-intensive. To mitigate this, we propose using perplexity as a surrogate metric, validated by extensive experiments demonstrating changes in an edited model's perplexity are strongly correlated with its downstream task performances. We further conduct an in-depth study on sequential editing, a practical setting for real-world scenarios, across various editing methods and LLMs, focusing on hard cases from our previous single edit studies. The results indicate that nearly all examined editing methods result in model collapse after only few edits. To facilitate further research, we have utilized GPT-3.5 to develop a new dataset, HardEdit, based on those hard cases. This dataset aims to establish the foundation for pioneering research in reliable model editing and the mechanisms underlying editing-induced model collapse. We hope this work can draw the community's attention to the potential risks inherent in model editing practices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. COMPKE: Complex Question Answering under Knowledge Editing

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  2. 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.

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

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Editing several related facts about one subject breaks ROME, MEMIT, and PMET, because their edit keys depend almost only on the subject token.

Pith tools