Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluations of model editing, a technique for changing the factual knowledge held by Large Language Models (LLMs), currently only use the 'next few token' completions after a prompt. As a result, the impact of these methods on longer natural language generation is largely unknown. We introduce long-form evaluation of model editing ($\textbf{\textit{LEME}}$) a novel evaluation protocol that measures the efficacy and impact of model editing in long-form generative settings. Our protocol consists of a machine-rated survey and a classifier which correlates well with human ratings. Importantly, we find that our protocol has very little relationship with previous short-form metrics (despite being designed to extend efficacy, generalization, locality, and portability into a long-form setting), indicating that our method introduces a novel set of dimensions for understanding model editing methods. Using this protocol, we benchmark a number of model editing techniques and present several findings including that, while some methods (ROME and MEMIT) perform well in making consistent edits within a limited scope, they suffer much more from factual drift than other methods. Finally, we present a qualitative analysis that illustrates common failure modes in long-form generative settings including internal consistency, lexical cohesion, and locality issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".