Wikipedia, a vast and continuously consulted knowledge base, faces significant challenges in maintaining up-to-date content due to its reliance on manual human editors. Inspired by the vision of continuous knowledge acquisition in NELL and fueled by advances in LLM-based agents, this paper introduces WiNELL, an agentic framework for continuously updating Wikipedia articles. Our approach employs a multi-agent framework to aggregate online information, select new and important knowledge for a target entity in Wikipedia, and then generate precise edit suggestions for human review. Our fine-grained editing models, trained on Wikipedia's extensive history of human edits, enable incorporating updates in a manner consistent with human editing behavior. Our editor models outperform both open-source instruction-following baselines and closed-source LLMs (e.g., GPT-4o) in key information coverage and editing efficiency. End-to-end evaluation on high-activity Wikipedia pages demonstrates WiNELL's ability to identify and suggest timely factual updates. This opens up a promising research direction in LLM agents for automatically updating knowledge bases in a never-ending fashion.

Assessing the extent of human edits on texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial to understanding the human-AI interactions and improving the quality of automated text generation systems. Existing edit distance metrics, such as Levenshtein, BLEU, ROUGE, and TER, often fail to accurately measure the effort required for post-editing, especially when edits involve substantial modifications, such as block operations. In this paper, we introduce a novel compression-based edit distance metric grounded in the Lempel-Ziv-77 algorithm, designed to quantify the amount of post-editing applied to LLM-generated texts. Our method leverages the properties of text compression to measure the informational difference between the original and edited texts. Through experiments on real-world human edits datasets, we demonstrate that our proposed metric is highly correlated with actual edit time and effort. We also show that LLMs exhibit an implicit understanding of editing speed, that aligns well with our metric. Furthermore, we compare our metric with existing ones, highlighting its advantages in capturing complex edits with linear computational efficiency. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/NDV-tiime/CompressionDistance

Watermarking has offered an effective approach to distinguishing text generated by large language models (LLMs) from human-written text. However, the pervasive presence of human edits on LLM-generated text dilutes watermark signals, thereby significantly degrading detection performance of existing methods. In this paper, by modeling human edits through mixture model detection, we introduce a new method in the form of a truncated goodness-of-fit test for detecting watermarked text under human edits, which we refer to as Tr-GoF. We prove that the Tr-GoF test achieves optimality in robust detection of the Gumbel-max watermark in a certain asymptotic regime of substantial text modifications and vanishing watermark signals. Importantly, Tr-GoF achieves this optimality \textit{adaptively} as it does not require precise knowledge of human edit levels or probabilistic specifications of the LLMs, in contrast to the optimal but impractical (Neyman--Pearson) likelihood ratio test. Moreover, we establish that the Tr-GoF test attains the highest detection efficiency rate in a certain regime of moderate text modifications. In stark contrast, we show that sum-based detection rules, as employed by existing methods, fail to achieve optimal robustness in both regimes because the additive nature of their statistics is less resilient to edit-induced noise. Finally, we demonstrate the competitive and sometimes superior empirical performance of the Tr-GoF test on both synthetic data and open-source LLMs in the OPT and LLaMA families.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on broad corpora and then used in communities with specialized norms. Is providing LLMs with community rules enough for models to follow these norms? We evaluate LLMs' capacity to detect (Task 1) and correct (Task 2) biased Wikipedia edits according to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. LLMs struggled with bias detection, achieving only 64% accuracy on a balanced dataset. Models exhibited contrasting biases (some under- and others over-predicted bias), suggesting distinct priors about neutrality. LLMs performed better at generation, removing 79% of words removed by Wikipedia editors. However, LLMs made additional changes beyond Wikipedia editors' simpler neutralizations, resulting in high-recall but low-precision editing. Interestingly, crowdworkers rated AI rewrites as more neutral (70%) and fluent (61%) than Wikipedia-editor rewrites. Qualitative analysis found LLMs sometimes applied NPOV more comprehensively than Wikipedia editors but often made extraneous non-NPOV-related changes (such as grammar). LLMs may apply rules in ways that resonate with the public but diverge from community experts. While potentially effective for generation, LLMs may reduce editor agency and increase moderation workload (e.g., verifying additions). Even when rules are easy to articulate, having LLMs apply them like community members may still be difficult.

Recent work has shown the promise of learning with human feedback paradigms to produce human-determined high-quality text. Existing works use human feedback to train large language models (LLMs) in general domain abstractive summarization and have obtained summary quality exceeding traditional likelihood training. In this paper, we focus on a less explored form of human feedback -- Human Edits. We propose Sequence Alignment (un)Likelihood Training (SALT), a novel technique to use both the human-edited and model-generated data together in the training loop. In addition, we demonstrate simulating Human Edits with ground truth summaries coming from existing training data -- Imitation edits, along with the model-generated summaries obtained after the training, to reduce the need for expensive human-edit data. In our experiments, we extend human feedback exploration from general domain summarization to medical domain summarization. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of SALT in improving the summary quality with Human and Imitation Edits. Through additional experiments, we show that SALT outperforms the conventional RLHF method (designed for human preferences) -- DPO, when applied to human-edit data. We hope the evidence in our paper prompts researchers to explore, collect, and better use different human feedback approaches scalably.

We introduce the first dataset for human edits of machine-generated visual stories and explore how these collected edits may be used for the visual story post-editing task. The dataset, VIST-Edit, includes 14,905 human edited versions of 2,981 machine-generated visual stories. The stories were generated by two state-of-the-art visual storytelling models, each aligned to 5 human-edited versions. We establish baselines for the task, showing how a relatively small set of human edits can be leveraged to boost the performance of large visual storytelling models. We also discuss the weak correlation between automatic evaluation scores and human ratings, motivating the need for new automatic metrics.