The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.
Can We Edit Factual Knowledge by In-Context Learning?
Open accessAbstract
Previous studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) like GPTs store massive factual knowledge in their parameters. However, the stored knowledge could be false or out-dated. Traditional knowledge editing methods refine LLMs via fine-tuning on texts containing specific knowledge. However, with the increasing scales of LLMs, these gradient-based approaches bring large computation costs. The trend of model-as-a-service also makes it impossible to modify knowledge in black-box LMs. Inspired by in-context learning (ICL), a new paradigm based on demonstration contexts without parameter updating, we explore whether ICL can edit factual knowledge. To answer this question, we give a comprehensive empirical study of ICL strategies. Experiments show that in-context knowledge editing (IKE), without any gradient and parameter updating, achieves a competitive success rate compared to gradient-based methods on GPT-J (6B) but with much fewer side effects, including less over-editing on similar but unrelated facts and less knowledge forgetting on previously stored knowledge. We also apply the method to larger LMs with tens or hundreds of parameters like OPT-175B, which shows the scalability of our method. The code is available at https://github.com/Zce1112zslx/IKE.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
IKE edits the model through context learning, adjusting the model's output based on similarity matching without requiring gradient-based adjustments.
“For example, IKE(Zheng et al., 2023) edits the model through context learning, adjusting the model's output based on similarity matching without requiring gradient-based adjustments.”
From Knowledge Decoupling via Orthogonal Projection for Lifelong Editing of Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2023
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Zheng, C., Li, L., Dong, Q., Fan, Y., Wu, Z., Xu, J., & Chang, B.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 4862-4876
- arXiv
- 2305.12740
- OpenAlex
- W4389518797
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 9.56
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61936012)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- in-context learning, large language models, knowledge forgetting, GPT-J
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review