DocTER: Evaluating Document-based Knowledge Editing
This work addresses the challenge of correcting outdated knowledge in AI models for researchers, but it is incremental as it adapts existing methods to a new document-based scenario.
The paper tackles the problem of knowledge editing in neural networks by using documents instead of manually labeled triples, establishing the DocTER benchmark and showing that document-based editing is more challenging, with the best method lagging by 10 points in success compared to using gold triples.
Knowledge editing aims to correct outdated or inaccurate knowledge in neural networks. In this paper, we explore knowledge editing using easily accessible documents instead of manually labeled factual triples employed in earlier research. To advance this field, we establish the first evaluation benchmark, \textit{DocTER}, featuring Documents containing counterfactual knowledge for editing. A comprehensive four-perspective evaluation is introduced: Edit Success, Locality, Reasoning, and Cross-lingual Transfer. To adapt conventional triplet-based knowledge editing methods for this task, we develop an Extract-then-Edit pipeline that extracts triples from documents before applying existing methods. Experiments on popular knowledge editing methods demonstrate that editing with documents presents significantly greater challenges than using triples. In document-based scenarios, even the best-performing in-context editing approach still lags behind by 10 points in editing success when compared to using gold triples. This observation also holds for both reasoning and cross-lingual test sets. We further analyze key factors influencing task performance, including the quality of extracted triples, the frequency and position of edited knowledge in documents, various methods for enhancing reasoning, and performance differences across various directions in cross-lingual knowledge editing, which provide valuable insights for future research.