PreprintCited by 54Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

Can We Edit Factual Knowledge by In-Context Learning?

Open access

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.12740

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

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
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
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