PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EVEDIT: Event-based Knowledge Editing with Deductive Editing Boundaries

Open access

Abstract

The dynamic nature of real-world information necessitates efficient knowledge editing (KE) in large language models (LLMs) for knowledge updating. However, current KE approaches, which typically operate on (subject, relation, object) triples, ignore the contextual information and the relation among different knowledge. Such editing methods could thus encounter an uncertain editing boundary, leaving a lot of relevant knowledge in ambiguity: Queries that could be answered pre-edit cannot be reliably answered afterward. In this work, we analyze this issue by introducing a theoretical framework for KE that highlights an overlooked set of knowledge that remains unchanged and aids in knowledge deduction during editing, which we name as the deduction anchor. We further address this issue by proposing a novel task of event-based knowledge editing that pairs facts with event descriptions. This task manifests not only a closer simulation of real-world editing scenarios but also a more logically sound setting, implicitly defining the deduction anchor to address the issue of indeterminate editing boundaries. We empirically demonstrate the superiority of event-based editing over the existing setting on resolving uncertainty in edited models, and curate a new benchmark dataset EvEdit derived from the CounterFact dataset. Moreover, while we observe that the event-based setting is significantly challenging for existing approaches, we propose a novel approach Self-Edit that showcases stronger performance, achieving 55.6% consistency improvement while maintaining the naturalness of generation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.11324

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Most existing knowledge editing methods only work on fixed and limited updating rules and knowledge entity triples.

    “most existing methods only work on fixed and limited updating rules and knowledge entity triples [150]”

    From Foundations of GenIR (2025) · cites this paper as [150]

Citations

Cites

  • Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension

    Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/k17-1034 · Cited by 482 · cited 1×

    “Other commonly used knowledge editing datasets include ZsRE (Levy et al., 2017; Yao et al., 2023), WikiBio (Hartvigsen et al., 2023), WikiData (Cohen et al., 2023), and ConvSent (Mitchell et al., 2022).”
    Method

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liu, J., Yu, P., Zhang, Y., Li, S., Zhang, Z., & Ji, H.
Affiliations
Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392011645
Cited by
1
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
knowledge editing, large language models, knowledge updating

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