SEAT: Sparse Entity-Aware Tuning for Knowledge Adaptation while Preserving Epistemic Abstention
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Adapting LLMs with new knowledge is increasingly important, but standard fine-tuning often erodes aligned epistemic abstention: the ability to acknowledge when the model does not know. This failure mode is especially concerning in high-stakes settings, where abstention is a critical safeguard against hallucination. We present SEAT, a preventive fine-tuning method that preserves epistemic abstention while maintaining strong knowledge acquisition. SEAT combines sparse tuning, which constrains global activation drift, with entity-perturbed KL regularization, which sharpens local epistemic boundaries and prevents spillover to neighboring knowledge. Crucially, SEAT requires no alignment data, explicit boundary probing, or post-hoc re-alignment, making it attractive for lightweight and privacy-sensitive adaptation. Across models and datasets, SEAT improves human-evaluated abstention on unknown queries by 18%-101% over the strongest baseline while retaining near-perfect target knowledge acquisition, and produces coherent, context-aware abstentions after tuning. Further analyses show that both components are essential, that SEAT more cleanly separates known from unknown queries in representation space, and that it preserves downstream utility. These results identify preservation of epistemic abstention as a core objective for safe knowledge adaptation.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2025.
Builds on
26 of 32 references.
References · 26
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
- 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,787
- 2017Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learningcited by 1,898
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2022Editing Models with Task Arithmeticcited by 1,120
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 716
- 2018Overcoming catastrophic forgetting with hard attention to the taskcited by 681
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 639
- 2024TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMscited by 533
14 more
- 2024Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?cited by 232
- 2023Large Language Models in Law: A Surveycited by 128
- 2024To Believe or Not to Believe Your LLMcited by 120
- 2023R-Tuning: Instructing Large Language Models to Say `I Don't Know'cited by 111
- 2020Continual Learning with Node-Importance based Adaptive Group Sparse Regularizationcited by 105
- 2024Revolutionizing Finance with LLMs: An Overview of Applications and Insightscited by 90
- 2023Alignment for Honestycited by 74
- 2022A Closer Look at Rehearsal-Free Continual Learningcited by 54
- 2025Calibrating Verbal Uncertainty as a Linear Feature to Reduce Hallucinationscited by 48
- 2025LLM Unlearning via Neural Activation Redirectioncited by 41
- 2024A Survey on Medical Large Language Models: Technology, Application, Trustworthiness, and Future Directionscited by 34
- 2024I Don't Know: Explicit Modeling of Uncertainty with an [IDK] Tokencited by 26
- 2024Controlled Low-Rank Adaptation with Subspace Regularization for Continued Training on Large Language Modelscited by 9
- 2025Why Representation Engineering Works: A Theoretical and Empirical Study in Vision-Language Modelscited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.