arXiv:2511. 05852v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Knowledge editing (KE) offers a lightweight alternative to retraining for updating large language models (LLMs).
By Yinjie Cheng, Paul Youssef, Christin Seifert, J\"org Schl\"otterer, Zhixue Zhao
The paper investigates how sequential knowledge editing can degrade a language model’s ability to discern reliable evidence from unreliable evidence without affecting overall accuracy. Using a conservatively tuned LoRA on Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct, the authors show that after 1,000 edits the model’s arbitration score for untouched facts drops by 36%, leading to higher error rates on its most confident decisions, while MMLU accuracy remains unchanged. The study also finds that in some model‑method combinations, sequential edits can reduce MMLU to chance levels even though edit success and locality remain perfect.
By Atul Anand
arXiv:2606. 23276v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Knowledge Editing (KE) has emerged as a frontier for updating specific facts in LLMs without costly retraining, but its reliability and underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood.
By Advik Raj Basani, Anshuman Chhabra
The paper investigates the problem of over‑editing by large language models when repairing code, showing that even state‑of‑the‑art models like GPT‑5.5 frequently rewrite more code than necessary. Using a benchmark of 400 BigCodeBench problems with controlled AST corruptions, the authors quantify excess edits and demonstrate that a simple preservation instruction can reduce unnecessary changes and improve pass rates. They further explore training strategies, finding that reinforcement learning yields the best balance between edit fidelity and performance retention, highlighting edit fidelity as a distinct, measurable dimension of code‑repair quality.
By Tongyao Zhu, Wei Hern Lim, Min-Yen Kan
arXiv:2606. 13705v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Yes.
By Aristotelis Lazaridis, Aman Sharma, Dylan Bates, Brian King, Vincent Lu, Jack FitzGerald
The paper investigates how to efficiently repair stale key-value (KV) caches in retrieval‑augmented generation systems after document edits. It proposes a budgeted in‑place recomputation approach and evaluates training‑free position‑selection policies on a factual RAG benchmark. Across three model families, a contiguous edit‑local window consistently recovers most of the post‑edit answer quality while being 13–21 times faster than a full re‑prefill, though its effectiveness diminishes when answer‑bearing text moves downstream.
By Mingyang Mao, Wyatt Mackey, Xiaomin Lin