Adjusting the outdated knowledge of large language models (LLMs) after deployment remains a major challenge. This difficulty has spurred the development of knowledge editing, which seeks to accurately and efficiently modify a model's internal (parametric) knowledge without retraining it from scratch. However, existing methods suffer from two limitations. First, they depend on structured triplets that are misaligned with the free-text nature of LLM pretraining and fail to capture the nuanced relationships among facts. Second, they typically support one-time knowledge updates, with relatively limited research on the problem of sequential or lifelong editing. To address these gaps, we propose a new task, Lifelong Free-text Knowledge Editing (LF-Edit), which enables models to incorporate updates expressed in natural language and supports continual editing over time. Despite its promise, LF-Edit faces the dual challenge of integrating new knowledge while mitigating the forgetting of prior information. To foster research on this new task, we construct a large-scale benchmark, Multi-Rank Lifelong Free-text Editing Benchmark (MRLF-Bench), containing 16,835 free-text edit requests. We further design a cognitively inspired multi-rank evaluation framework encompassing four levels: memorization, understanding, constrained comprehension, and reasoning. To tackle the challenges inherent in LF-Edit, we introduce a novel approach named EvoEdit that enhances knowledge injection through Latent Perturbation Augmentation and preserves prior information via Knowledge-driven Parameter Fusion. Experimental results demonstrate that EvoEdit substantially outperforms existing knowledge editing methods on the proposed LF-Edit task.

Knowledge editing technology has received widespread attention for low-cost updates of incorrect or outdated knowledge in large-scale language models. However, recent research has found that edited models often exhibit varying degrees of performance degradation.

Concerns about text-to-image (T2I) generative models infringing on privacy, copyright, and safety have led to the development of concept erasure techniques (CETs). The goal of an effective CET is to prohibit the generation of undesired "target" concepts specified by the user, while preserving the ability to synthesize high-quality images of other concepts. In this work, we demonstrate that concept erasure has side effects and CETs can be easily circumvented. For a comprehensive measurement of the robustness of CETs, we present the Side Effect Evaluation (SEE) benchmark that consists of hierarchical and compositional prompts describing objects and their attributes. The dataset and an automated evaluation pipeline quantify side effects of CETs across three aspects: impact on neighboring concepts, evasion of targets, and attribute leakage. Our experiments reveal that CETs can be circumvented by using superclass-subclass hierarchy, semantically similar prompts, and compositional variants of the target. We show that CETs suffer from attribute leakage and a counterintuitive phenomenon of attention concentration or dispersal. We release our benchmark and evaluation tools to aid future work on robust concept erasure.

Model editing has been gaining increasing attention over the past few years. For Knowledge Editing in particular, more challenging evaluation datasets have recently been released. These datasets use different methodologies to score the success of editors. Yet, it remains under-explored how robust these methodologies are and whether they unfairly favor some editors. Moreover, the disruptive impact of these editors on overall model capabilities remains a constant blind spot. We address both of these problems and show that choosing different metrics and evaluation methodologies as well as different edit batch sizes can lead to a different ranking of knowledge editors. Crucially we demonstrate this effect also on general language understanding tasks evaluated alongside the knowledge editing tasks. Further we include a manual assessment of the string matching based evaluation method for knowledge editing that is favored by recently released datasets, revealing a tendency to produce false positive matches.

Large Language Models have demonstrated superior performance across a wide range of tasks, but they still exhibit undesirable errors due to incorrect knowledge learned from the training data. To avoid this, knowledge editing methods emerged to precisely edit the specific model knowledge via efficiently modifying a very small percentage of parameters. % However, those methods can lead to the problem of Specificity Failure: when the content related to the edited knowledge occurs in the context, it can inadvertently corrupt other pre-existing knowledge. However, those methods can lead to the problem of Specificity Failure, where the existing knowledge and capabilities are severely degraded due to editing. Our preliminary indicates that Specificity Failure primarily stems from the model's attention heads assigning excessive attention scores to entities related to the edited knowledge, thereby unduly focusing on specific snippets within the context, which we denote as the Attention Drift phenomenon. To mitigate such Attention Drift issue, we introduce a simple yet effective method Selective Attention Drift Restriction}(SADR), which introduces an additional regularization term during the knowledge editing process to restrict changes in the attention weight distribution, thereby preventing undue focus on the edited entity. Experiments on five frequently used strong LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, where SADR can significantly mitigate Specificity Failure in the predominant knowledge editing tasks.

Knowledge editing technology has received widespread attention for low-cost updates of incorrect or outdated knowledge in large-scale language models. However, recent research has found that edited models often exhibit varying degrees of performance degradation. The reasons behind this phenomenon and potential solutions have not yet been provided. In order to investigate the reasons for the performance decline of the edited model and optimize the editing method, this work explores the underlying reasons from both data and model perspectives. Specifically, 1) from a data perspective, to clarify the impact of data on the performance of editing models, this paper first constructs a Multi-Question Dataset (MQD) to evaluate the impact of different types of editing data on model performance. The performance of the editing model is mainly affected by the diversity of editing targets and sequence length, as determined through experiments. 2) From a model perspective, this article explores the factors that affect the performance of editing models. The results indicate a strong correlation between the L1-norm of the editing model layer and the editing accuracy, and clarify that this is an important factor leading to the bottleneck of editing performance. Finally, in order to improve the performance of the editing model, this paper further proposes a Dump for Sequence (D4S) method, which successfully overcomes the previous editing bottleneck by reducing the L1-norm of the editing layer, allowing users to perform multiple effective edits and minimizing model damage. Our code is available at https://github.com/nlpkeg/D4S.

Text-to-image models suffer from various safety issues that may limit their suitability for deployment. Previous methods have separately addressed individual issues of bias, copyright, and offensive content in text-to-image models. However, in the real world, all of these issues appear simultaneously in the same model. We present a method that tackles all issues with a single approach. Our method, Unified Concept Editing (UCE), edits the model without training using a closed-form solution, and scales seamlessly to concurrent edits on text-conditional diffusion models. We demonstrate scalable simultaneous debiasing, style erasure, and content moderation by editing text-to-image projections, and we present extensive experiments demonstrating improved efficacy and scalability over prior work. Our code is available at https://unified.baulab.info

Knowledge editing has been proposed as an effective method for updating and correcting the internal knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this paper, we identify and investigate the phenomenon of Editing Overfit, where edited models assign disproportionately high probabilities to the edit target, hindering the generalization of new knowledge in complex scenarios. We attribute this issue to the current editing paradigm, which places excessive emphasis on the direct correspondence between the input prompt and the edit target for each edit sample. To further explore this issue, we introduce a new benchmark, EVOKE (EValuation of Editing Overfit in Knowledge Editing), along with finegrained evaluation metrics. Through comprehensive experiments and analysis, we demonstrate that Editing Overfit is prevalent in current editing methods and that common overfitting mitigation strategies are of limited effectiveness in knowledge editing. To overcome this, inspired by LLMs' knowledge recall mechanisms, we propose a new plug-and-play strategy called Learn to Inference (LTI), which introduce a Multi-stage Inference Constraint module to guide the edited models in recalling new knowledge similarly to how unedited LLMs leverage knowledge through in-context learning. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks (Zhao et al., 2023), yet they often contain outdated or incorrect information, raising concerns about their reliability and factual accuracy. Knowledge Editing (Yao et al., 2023) has emerged as a promising solution to precisely update or correct a model's knowledge. Approaches to knowledge editing fall into two main categories: parameter-preserving methods, such as SERAC (Mitchell et al., 2022) and T-patcher (Huang et al.), which adjust outputs by storing external knowledge, and parameter-modifying methods, which directly alter the model's internal parameters. The latter includes fine-tuning-based methods like FT-L (Zhu et al., 2020), meta-learning approaches such as KE (De Cao et al., 2021) and MEND (Mitchell et al., 2021), and locate-then-edit methods like ROME (Meng et al., 2022a) and MEMIT (Meng et al., 2022b). Although existing methods have achieved promising results, their performance experiences a catastrophic decline when transferred to complex tasks involving reasoning (Yao et al., 2023). For instance, in the representative multi-hop reasoning task, after the LLM is updated with Steve Jobs as the founder of Microsoft, it can easily respond to straightforward questions like "Who is the founder of Microsoft?" with "Steve Jobs."

Training with mixed data distributions is a common and important part of creating multi-task and instruction-following models. The diversity of the data distributions and cost of joint training makes the optimization procedure extremely challenging. Data mixing methods partially address this problem, albeit having a sub-optimal performance across data sources and require multiple expensive training runs. In this paper, we propose a simple and efficient alternative for better optimization of the data sources by combining models individually trained on each data source with the base model using basic element-wise vector operations. The resulting model, namely Distribution Edited Model (DEM), is 11x cheaper than standard data mixing and outperforms strong baselines on a variety of benchmarks, yielding up to 6.2% improvement on MMLU, 11.5% on BBH, 16.1% on DROP, and 9.3% on HELM with models of size 3B to 13B. Notably, DEM does not require full re-training when modifying a single data-source, thus making it very flexible and scalable for training with diverse data sources.