PreprintCited by 55Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

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

MQuAKE: Assessing Knowledge Editing in Language Models via Multi-Hop Questions

Open access

Abstract

The information stored in large language models (LLMs) falls out of date quickly, and retraining from scratch is often not an option. This has recently given rise to a range of techniques for injecting new facts through updating model weights. Current evaluation paradigms are extremely limited, mainly validating the recall of edited facts, but changing one fact should cause rippling changes to the model's related beliefs. If we edit the UK Prime Minister to now be Rishi Sunak, then we should get a different answer to Who is married to the British Prime Minister? In this work, we present a benchmark, MQuAKE (Multi-hop Question Answering for Knowledge Editing), comprising multi-hop questions that assess whether edited models correctly answer questions where the answer should change as an entailed consequence of edited facts. While we find that current knowledge-editing approaches can recall edited facts accurately, they fail catastrophically on the constructed multi-hop questions. We thus propose a simple memory-based approach, MeLLo, which stores all edited facts externally while prompting the language model iteratively to generate answers that are consistent with the edited facts. While MQuAKE remains challenging, we show that MeLLo scales well with LLMs (e.g., OpenAI GPT-3.5-turbo) and outperforms previous model editors by a large margin.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.14795

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?

  • Preserving model parameters methods usually have poor generalization, and the required additional content increases significantly with the number of editing.

    “However, these methods usually have poor generalization, and the required additional content also increases significantly with the number of editing.”
  • RAG has become the de facto continual learning solution for production LLM systems due to its simplicity and robustness.

    “Due to their simplicity and robustness (Zhong et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2024), RAG has quickly become the de facto continual learning solution for production LLM systems.”

    From From RAG to Memory: Non-Parametric Continual Learning for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Zhong et al., 2023

  • No methodology has yet to emerge as a robust solution for continual learning in LLMs.

    “Although many techniques to update LLMs exist, such as standard fine-tuning, model editing [15, 49, 50, 51, 52, 95] and even external parametric memory modules inspired by human memory [58, 82, 32], no methodology has yet to emerge as a robust solution for continual learning in LLMs [26, 46, 97].”
  • The parameter preservation KE framework performs well in multi-hop question answering tasks.

    “Currently, the parameter preservation KE framework performs well in multi-hop question answering (MQA) tasks (Zhong et al., 2023; Cohen et al., 2024b)”

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 27 · Cited by 55

Metadata

Authors
Zhong, Z., Wu, Z., Manning, C. D., Potts, C., & Chen, D.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
15686-15702
OpenAlex
W4389519586
Cited by
55
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7
FWCI
9.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2239290, CAREER)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
  • Rice University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
knowledge editing, large language models, multi-hop question answering, external memory, factual consistency, fact recall

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