How Well Can Knowledge Edit Methods Edit Perplexing Knowledge?
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2024
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866913943008575488 |
|---|---|
| author | Ge, Huaizhi Rudzicz, Frank Zhu, Zining |
| author_facet | Ge, Huaizhi Rudzicz, Frank Zhu, Zining |
| contents | Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but updating their knowledge post-training remains a critical challenge. While recent model editing techniques like Rank-One Model Editing (ROME) show promise, their effectiveness may vary based on the nature of the knowledge being edited. We introduce the concept of ``perplexingness'': the degree to which new knowledge conflicts with an LLM's learned conceptual hierarchies and categorical relationships. For instance, editing ``British Shorthair is a kind of cat'' to ``British Shorthair is a kind of dog'' represents a low-perplexingness edit within the same taxonomic level, while editing ``A cat is a kind of animal'' to ``A cat is a kind of plant'' represents a high-perplexingness edit that violates fundamental categorical boundaries. To systematically investigate this phenomenon, we introduce HierarchyData, a carefully curated dataset of 99 hyponym-hypernym pairs across diverse categories. Through controlled experiments across three models and four editing methods, we demonstrate a strong negative correlation between the perplexingness of new knowledge and the effectiveness of knowledge editing. Our analysis reveals that edits involving more abstract concepts (hypernyms) generally exhibit higher perplexingness and are more resistant to modification than their specific counterparts (hyponyms). These findings highlight a fundamental challenge in LLM knowledge editing: the more a new fact contradicts an LLM's learned conceptual hierarchies, the harder it becomes to reliably encode that knowledge. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2406_17253 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | How Well Can Knowledge Edit Methods Edit Perplexing Knowledge? Ge, Huaizhi Rudzicz, Frank Zhu, Zining Computation and Language Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but updating their knowledge post-training remains a critical challenge. While recent model editing techniques like Rank-One Model Editing (ROME) show promise, their effectiveness may vary based on the nature of the knowledge being edited. We introduce the concept of ``perplexingness'': the degree to which new knowledge conflicts with an LLM's learned conceptual hierarchies and categorical relationships. For instance, editing ``British Shorthair is a kind of cat'' to ``British Shorthair is a kind of dog'' represents a low-perplexingness edit within the same taxonomic level, while editing ``A cat is a kind of animal'' to ``A cat is a kind of plant'' represents a high-perplexingness edit that violates fundamental categorical boundaries. To systematically investigate this phenomenon, we introduce HierarchyData, a carefully curated dataset of 99 hyponym-hypernym pairs across diverse categories. Through controlled experiments across three models and four editing methods, we demonstrate a strong negative correlation between the perplexingness of new knowledge and the effectiveness of knowledge editing. Our analysis reveals that edits involving more abstract concepts (hypernyms) generally exhibit higher perplexingness and are more resistant to modification than their specific counterparts (hyponyms). These findings highlight a fundamental challenge in LLM knowledge editing: the more a new fact contradicts an LLM's learned conceptual hierarchies, the harder it becomes to reliably encode that knowledge. |
| title | How Well Can Knowledge Edit Methods Edit Perplexing Knowledge? |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17253 |