Neuron-Level Sequential Editing for Large Language Models
Houcheng Jiang, Junfeng Fang, Tianyu Zhang, An Zhang, Ruipeng Wang,, Tao Liang, Xiang Wang

TL;DR
This paper introduces NSE, a neuron-level sequential editing method for large language models that effectively updates internal knowledge through multiple rounds while minimizing forgetting and failure.
Contribution
The paper presents NSE, a novel neuron-level sequential editing approach that supports multi-round updates in LLMs, addressing limitations of existing single-round editing methods.
Findings
NSE outperforms existing model editing methods in experiments.
NSE effectively mitigates model forgetting during sequential editing.
NSE supports multiple rounds of knowledge updates without significant failure.
Abstract
This work explores sequential model editing in large language models (LLMs), a critical task that involves modifying internal knowledge within LLMs continuously through multi-round editing, each incorporating updates or corrections to adjust the model outputs without the need for costly retraining. Existing model editing methods, especially those that alter model parameters, typically focus on single-round editing and often face significant challenges in sequential model editing-most notably issues of model forgetting and failure. To address these challenges, we introduce a new model editing method, namely \textbf{N}euron-level \textbf{S}equential \textbf{E}diting (NSE), tailored for supporting sequential model editing. Specifically, we optimize the target layer's hidden states using the model's original weights to prevent model failure. Furthermore, we iteratively select neurons in…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Conference Withdrawn Submission
1. Quantitative experiments are adequate and effective. 2. The methodology is clear and well-understood.
More discussion and ablation analysis are required, please see the Questions.
1. This paper focuses on the sequential editing task and the editing methods that modify the original model’s parameters. They extend the previous baseline MEMIT to this scenario and prove the superiority of their proposed method. 2. The authors have done comprehensive experiments to show the superiority of their method on the sequential model editing task compared to methods that modify the model’s parameters. 3. The authors release their code for reproducibility.
1. The authors should make it clearer in their presentation that they focus on methods that modify the parameters. The models that freeze the model’s parameters, e.g., SERAC[1] and T-Patcher[2], show stable performance in sequential editing[3]. The authors don’t compare their method with these two strong baselines in the experiments. Therefore, it is more appropriate to clearly state this constraint in the Introduction, especially in the first paragraph. The first paragraph constrains the model
- The sequential editing problem is essential for enabling the model's lifelong learning capability. - The authors conduct comprehensive experiments to demonstrate the superiority of their method.
- There are some claims that are not supported by any references or experiments. For example, in line 199-201, the authors claim that "This indicates that the cumulative parameter updates from each editing round can lead to a shift in value computation. Conversely, using the original model parameters fθ0 to compute zi effectively prevents this issue" without any supports. And in line 255-257, where the claim is "However, due to errors in the fitting process, some knowledge proves difficult to ed
Code & Models
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsFerroelectric and Negative Capacitance Devices · Machine Learning in Materials Science · Topic Modeling
MethodsFocus
