Characterizing a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge of a given question is challenging. As a result, prior work has primarily examined LLM behavior under knowledge conflicts, where the model's internal parametric memory contradicts information in the external context. However, this does not fully reflect how well the model knows the answer to the question. In this paper, we first introduce a taxonomy of five knowledge statuses based on the consistency and correctness of LLM knowledge modes. We then propose KScope, a hierarchical framework of statistical tests that progressively refines hypotheses about knowledge modes and characterizes LLM knowledge into one of these five statuses. We apply KScope to nine LLMs across four datasets and systematically establish: (1) Supporting context narrows knowledge gaps across models.

Knowledge editing has emerged as an efficient approach for updating factual knowledge in large language models (LLMs), typically achieved by first locating key knowledge-storage modules and then modifying their parameters. However, most existing methods focus exclusively on updating the weights of Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) modules, which are commonly identified as the primary repositories of factual information. Other important components, such as attention (Attn) modules--one of the core modules in LLMs--are often ignored during editing. This biased allocation of updates can leave residual outdated knowledge in the model and limit the effectiveness of knowledge editing. In this paper, we conduct comprehensive and systematic knowledge localization experiments on advanced LLMs, revealing that Attn modules play a substantial role in factual knowledge storage and retrieval, especially in earlier layers. Building on these insights, we propose IntAttn-Edit, a novel method that extends the associative memory paradigm to jointly update both MLP and Attn modules. Our approach employs a knowledge balancing strategy that proportionally allocates update magnitudes based on each module's measured contribution to knowledge storage. Extensive experiments on popular benchmarks demonstrate that IntAttn-Edit consistently achieves superior results over existing methods, delivering higher edit success, improved generalization, and robust knowledge preservation. Further empirical analysis shows that our knowledge balancing strategy enables the editing performance to remain within the optimal range across different settings.

Characterizing a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge of a given question is challenging. As a result, prior work has primarily examined LLM behavior under knowledge conflicts, where the model's internal parametric memory contradicts information in the external context. However, this does not fully reflect how well the model knows the answer to the question. In this paper, we first introduce a taxonomy of five knowledge statuses based on the consistency and correctness of LLM knowledge modes. We then propose KScope, a hierarchical framework of statistical tests that progressively refines hypotheses about knowledge modes and characterizes LLM knowledge into one of these five statuses. We apply KScope to nine LLMs across four datasets and systematically establish: (1) Supporting context narrows knowledge gaps across models. (2) Context features related to difficulty, relevance, and familiarity drive successful knowledge updates. (3) LLMs exhibit similar feature preferences when partially correct or conflicted, but diverge sharply when consistently wrong. (4) Context summarization constrained by our feature analysis, together with enhanced credibility, further improves update effectiveness and generalizes across LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support scientific research, but their knowledge of scientific advancements can quickly become outdated. We introduce ScienceMeter, a new framework for evaluating scientific knowledge update methods over scientific knowledge spanning the past, present, and future. ScienceMeter defines three metrics: knowledge preservation, the extent to which models' understanding of previously learned papers are preserved; knowledge acquisition, how well scientific claims from newly introduced papers are acquired; and knowledge projection, the ability of the updated model to anticipate or generalize to related scientific claims that may emerge in the future. Using ScienceMeter, we examine the scientific knowledge of LLMs on claim judgment and generation tasks across a curated dataset of 15,444 scientific papers and 30,888 scientific claims from ten domains including medicine, biology, materials science, and computer science. We evaluate five representative knowledge update approaches including training- and inference-time methods. With extensive experiments, we find that the best-performing knowledge update methods can preserve only 85.9% of existing knowledge, acquire 71.7% of new knowledge, and project 37.7% of future knowledge. Inference-based methods work for larger models, whereas smaller models require training to achieve comparable performance. Cross-domain analysis reveals that performance on these objectives is correlated. Even when applying on specialized scientific LLMs, existing knowledge update methods fail to achieve these objectives collectively, underscoring that developing robust scientific knowledge update mechanisms is both crucial and challenging.

Large language models (LLMs) encode vast amounts of pre-trained knowledge in their parameters, but updating them as real-world information evolves remains a challenge. Existing methodologies and benchmarks primarily target entity substitutions, failing to capture the full breadth of complex real-world dynamics. In this paper, we introduce Knowledge Update Playground (KUP), an automatic pipeline for simulating realistic knowledge updates reflected in an evidence corpora. KUP's evaluation framework includes direct and indirect probes to both test memorization of updated facts and reasoning over them, for any update learning methods. Next, we present a lightweight method called memory conditioned training (MCT), which conditions tokens in the update corpus on self-generated "memory" tokens during training. Our strategy encourages LLMs to surface and reason over newly memorized knowledge at inference. Our results on two strong LLMs show that (1) KUP benchmark is highly challenging, with the best CPT models achieving $<2\%$ in indirect probing setting (reasoning) and (2) MCT training significantly outperforms prior continued pre-training (CPT) baselines, improving direct probing (memorization) results by up to $25.4\%$.

As real-world knowledge evolves, the information embedded within large language models (LLMs) can become outdated, inadequate, or erroneous. Model editing has emerged as a prominent approach for updating LLMs' knowledge with minimal computational costs and parameter changes. This approach typically identifies and adjusts specific model parameters associated with newly acquired knowledge. However, existing methods often underestimate the adverse effects that parameter modifications can have on broadly distributed knowledge. More critically, post-edit LLMs frequently struggle with multi-hop reasoning and continuous knowledge updates. Although various studies have discussed these shortcomings, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation. In this paper, we provide an evaluation of ten model editing methods along four dimensions: reliability, generalization, locality, and portability. Results confirm that all ten popular model editing methods show significant shortcomings across multiple dimensions, suggesting model editing is less promising. We then propose a straightforward method called Selective Contextual Reasoning (SCR), for knowledge updating. SCR does not modify model parameters but harnesses LLM's inherent contextual reasoning capabilities utilizing the updated knowledge pieces. Under SCR, an LLM first assesses whether an incoming query falls within the scope of an external knowledge base. If it does, the relevant external knowledge texts are contextualized to enhance reasoning; otherwise, the query is answered directly. We evaluate SCR against the ten model editing methods on two counterfactual datasets with three backbone LLMs. Empirical results confirm the effectiveness and efficiency of contextual reasoning for knowledge updating.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems have demonstrated remarkable potential as question answering systems in the K-12 Education domain, where knowledge is typically queried within the restricted scope of authoritative textbooks. However, the discrepancy between textbooks and the parametric knowledge in Large Language Models (LLMs) could undermine the effectiveness of RAG systems. To systematically investigate the robustness of RAG systems under such knowledge discrepancies, we present EduKDQA, a question answering dataset that simulates knowledge discrepancies in real applications by applying hypothetical knowledge updates in answers and source documents. EduKDQA includes 3,005 questions covering five subjects, under a comprehensive question typology from the perspective of context utilization and knowledge integration. We conducted extensive experiments on retrieval and question answering performance. We find that most RAG systems suffer from a substantial performance drop in question answering with knowledge discrepancies, while questions that require integration of contextual knowledge and parametric knowledge pose a challenge to LLMs.

Multi-hop Question Answering (MQA) under knowledge editing (KE) is a key challenge in Large Language Models (LLMs). While best-performing solutions in this domain use a plan and solve paradigm to split a question into sub-questions followed by response generation, we claim that this approach is sub-optimal as it fails for hard to decompose questions, and it does not explicitly cater to correlated knowledge updates resulting as a consequence of knowledge edits. This has a detrimental impact on the overall consistency of the updated knowledge. To address these issues, in this paper, we propose a novel framework named RULE-KE, i.e., RULE based Knowledge Editing, which is a cherry on the top for augmenting the performance of all existing MQA methods under KE. Specifically, RULE-KE leverages rule discovery to discover a set of logical rules. Then, it uses these discovered rules to update knowledge about facts highly correlated with the edit. Experimental evaluation using existing and newly curated datasets (i.e., RKE-EVAL) shows that RULE-KE helps augment both performances of parameter-based and memory-based solutions up to 92% and 112.9%, respectively.

In RAG, the model's knowledge can be updated from documents provided in context. This leads to cases of conflict between the model's parametric knowledge and the contextual information, where the model may not always update its knowledge. Previous work studied knowledge conflicts by creating synthetic documents that contradict the model's correct parametric answers. We present a framework for studying knowledge conflicts in a realistic setup. We update incorrect parametric knowledge using real conflicting documents. This reflects how knowledge conflicts arise in practice. In this realistic scenario, we find that knowledge updates fail less often than previously reported. In cases where the models still fail to update their answers, we find a parametric bias: the incorrect parametric answer appearing in context makes the knowledge update likelier to fail. These results suggest that the factual parametric knowledge of LLMs can negatively influence their reading abilities and behaviors.

Academia was engulfed in scandal this week after research papers across dozens of academic journals were found to have been written by AI. An investigation found over 100 papers that were likely written, at least in part, by ChatGPT. These papers slipped through because of lax or nonexistent peer-review processes at for-profit journals, stoking wider fears that the body of human scientific knowledge is being rapidly infiltrated by low-quality computer-generated garbage. Many of these papers were published in obscure scientific journals, but news of this kind of scientific fraud hurts public trust in science, many scientists agree. Even before AI-generated text in scientific papers, so-called'paper mills' have been pumping out low-quality and even plagiarized papers for years.