Carpe diem: On the Evaluation of World Knowledge in Lifelong Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic nature of knowledge in an ever-changing world presents challenges for language models trained on static data; the model in the real world often requires not only acquiring new knowledge but also overwriting outdated information into updated ones. To study the ability of language models for these time-dependent dynamics in human language, we introduce a novel task, EvolvingQA, a temporally evolving question-answering benchmark designed for training and evaluating LMs on an evolving Wikipedia database. The construction of EvolvingQA is automated with our pipeline using large language models. We uncover that existing continual learning baselines suffer from updating and removing outdated knowledge. Our analysis suggests that models fail to rectify knowledge due to small weight gradients. In addition, we elucidate that language models particularly struggle to reflect the change of numerical or temporal information. Our work aims to model the dynamic nature of real-world information, suggesting faithful evaluations of the evolution-adaptability of language models. Our data construction code and dataset files are available at https://github.com/kimyuji/EvolvingQA_benchmark.
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 | 0.014 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
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".