We investigate whether the training protocol can induce spatial locality in the early layers of a Vision Transformer (ViT) trained from scratch, without large-scale pretraining. Keeping the architecture and optimization procedure fixed, we compare a Baseline protocol with a Modern protocol (AutoAugment/ColorJitter, CutMix, and Label Smoothing) on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny-ImageNet, characterizing each attention head via Mean Attention Distance (MAD) and normalized entropy. Across all three datasets, the Modern protocol produces more local and more concentrated attention in early layers; on CIFAR-100, the minimum MAD drops from 0.316 (Baseline) to 0.008 (Modern). To identify the source of this effect, we conduct an ablation study on CIFAR-100 by adding or removing each component individually. The results identify CutMix as the determining component within our experiments: all conditions with CutMix exhibit MAD 0.024, while all conditions without CutMix remain at MAD 0.210. AutoAugment and Label Smoothing show no independent effect on locality. Taken together, these findings suggest that the pressure to classify from partial image regions, induced by CutMix, can promote the emergence of local attention in Vision Transformers.

To gain intuition for how p-locality functions, we will introduce another notion of locality, called Markov locality, which will use the language of Markov blankets. We will prove that under relatively relaxed conditions p-locality and Markov locality are equivalent. This will allow us to relate the notion of locality to various graph structures commonly used to represent probability distributions, and will be a key step in proving Properties 2.1 and 2.2. We start by defining the Markov boundary, M(X,S), of a random variable X contained in a set of random variables S, as a minimal set such that p(X|S) = p(X|M(X,S)). The Markov boundary defines a minimal set of variables such that, conditioned on these variables, conditioning on no additional random variables in S changes the probability of X [39]. Similarly, we define the Markov blanket, M(X,S) for X in S as any set of variables such that conditioning on M(X,S), makes X conditionally independent from all other variables [39]. In this way, the Markov boundary is a Markov blanket but not all blankets are boundaries. Markov locality: Given probability distribution p(Z) and function f: RNX+NΘ RNΘ, the update function f(Z) is Markov-local with respect to the distribution p over Z if and only if k: Z Ωs.t. AMarkov boundary can be thought of as the set of variables that'locally' communicate with the parameter Θk, thus providing a natural measure of locality. Importantly, for Markov-locality to be of use, we would like the Markov boundaries of random variables in the model of interest to be unique.

Model editing aims to data-efficiently correct predictive errors of large pre-trained models while ensuring generalization to neighboring failures and locality to minimize unintended effects on unrelated examples. While significant progress has been made in editing Transformer-based large language models, effective strategies for editing vision Transformers (ViTs) in computer vision remain largely untapped. In this paper, we take initial steps towards correcting predictive errors of ViTs, particularly those arising from subpopulation shifts. Taking a locate-then-edit approach, we first address the challenge by meta-learning a hypernetwork on CutMix-augmented data generated for editing reliability. This trained hypernetwork produces generalizable binary masks that identify a sparse subset of structured model parameters, responsive to real-world failure samples. Afterward, we solve the problem by simply fine-tuning the identified parameters using a variant of gradient descent to achieve successful edits. To validate our method, we construct an editing benchmark that introduces subpopulation shifts towards natural underrepresented images and AI-generated images, thereby revealing the limitations of pre-trained ViTs for object recognition. Our approach not only achieves superior performance on the proposed benchmark but also allows for adjustable trade-offs between generalization and locality. Our code is available at https://github.com/hustyyq/Where-to-Edit.

The swift advancement in Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) also presents significant challenges for effective knowledge editing. Current methods, including intrinsic knowledge editing and external knowledge resorting, each possess strengths and weaknesses, struggling to balance the desired properties of reliability, generality, and locality when applied to MLLMs. In this paper, we propose \textbf{UniKE}, a novel multimodal editing method that establishes a unified perspective and paradigm for intrinsic knowledge editing and external knowledge resorting. Both types of knowledge are conceptualized as vectorized key-value memories, with the corresponding editing processes resembling the assimilation and accommodation phases of human cognition, conducted at the same semantic levels. Within such a unified framework, we further promote knowledge collaboration by disentangling the knowledge representations into the semantic and truthfulness spaces. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our method, which ensures that the post-edit MLLM simultaneously maintains excellent reliability, generality, and locality.

Large language models (LLMs) need knowledge updates to meet the ever-growing world facts and correct the hallucinated responses, facilitating the methods of lifelong model editing. Where the updated knowledge resides in memories is a fundamental question for model editing. In this paper, we find that editing either long-term memory (direct model parameters) or working memory (non-parametric knowledge of neural network activations/representations by retrieval) will result in an impossible triangle---reliability, generalization, and locality can not be realized together in the lifelong editing settings. For long-term memory, directly editing the parameters will cause conflicts with irrelevant pretrained knowledge or previous edits (poor reliability and locality). For working memory, retrieval-based activations can hardly make the model understand the edits and generalize (poor generalization). Therefore, we propose WISE to bridge the gap between memories.