2023/10/18 by Yuval Pinter, Pinter, Yuval, Michael Elhadad +1 · 3 citations
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Computer Science · #Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies #Computation and Language (cs.CL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #Machine Learning (cs.LG) #Natural Language Processing Techniques #Topic Modeling
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.11958
openalex publication_date 2023/10/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
We call into question the recently popularized method of direct model editing as a means of correcting factual errors in LLM generations. We contrast model editing with three similar but distinct approaches that pursue better defined objectives: (1) retrieval-based architectures, which decouple factual memory from inference and linguistic capabilities embodied in LLMs; (2) concept erasure methods, which aim at preventing systemic bias in generated text; and (3) attribution methods, which aim at grounding generations into identified textual sources. We argue that direct model editing cannot be trusted as a systematic remedy for the disadvantages inherent to LLMs, and while it has proven potential in improving model explainability, it opens risks by reinforcing the notion that models can be trusted for factuality. We call for cautious promotion and application of model editing as part of the LLM deployment process, and for responsibly limiting the use cases of LLMs to those not relying on editing as a critical component.