# Towards a Principled Evaluation of Knowledge Editors

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05937 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05937/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07461/) (2018)
- [Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.00796/) (2016)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.07843/) (2016)
- [Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.05262/) (2022)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.10997/) (2023)
- [CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00937/) (2018)
- [Unsupervised Dense Information Retrieval with Contrastive Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09118/) (2021)
- [Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07229/) (2022)
- [The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06031/) (2016)
- [Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.14599/) (2019)
- [Editing Factual Knowledge in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08164/) (2021)
- [Memory-Based Model Editing at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.06520/) (2022)
- [Knowledge Unlearning for Mitigating Privacy Risks in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01504/) (2022)
- [Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04115/) (2017)
- [Editing Large Language Models: Problems, Methods, and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13172/) (2023)
- [MQuAKE: Assessing Knowledge Editing in Language Models via Multi-Hop Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14795/) (2023)
- [Can We Edit Factual Knowledge by In-Context Learning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12740/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Ripple Effects of Knowledge Editing in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.12976/) (2023)
- [Editable Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.00345/) (2020)
- [Continual Lifelong Learning in Natural Language Processing: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.09823/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Beyond Endpoint Scores: Time- and Capacity-Conditioned Evaluation of Continual Knowledge Updating](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03900/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Model editing has been gaining increasing attention over the past few years. For Knowledge Editing in particular, more challenging evaluation datasets have recently been released. These datasets use different methodologies to score the success of editors. Yet, it remains under-explored how robust these methodologies are and whether they unfairly favor some editors. Moreover, the disruptive impact of these editors on overall model capabilities remains a constant blind spot. We address both of these problems and show that choosing different metrics and evaluation methodologies as well as different edit batch sizes can lead to a different ranking of knowledge editors. Crucially we demonstrate this effect also on general language understanding tasks evaluated alongside the knowledge editing tasks. Further we include a manual assessment of the string matching based evaluation method for knowledge editing that is favored by recently released datasets, revealing a tendency to produce false positive matches.