Although model editing has shown promise in revising knowledge in Large Language Models (LLMs), its impact on the inherent capabilities of LLMs is often overlooked. In this work, we reveal a critical phenomenon: even a single edit can trigger model collapse, manifesting as significant performance degradation in various benchmark tasks. However, benchmarking LLMs after each edit, while necessary to prevent such collapses, is impractically time-consuming and resource-intensive. To mitigate this, we propose using perplexity as a surrogate metric, validated by extensive experiments demonstrating changes in an edited model’s perplexity are strongly correlated with its downstream task performances. We further conduct an in-depth study on sequential editing, a practical setting for real-world scenarios, across various editing methods and LLMs, focusing on hard cases from our previous single edit studies. The results indicate that nearly all examined editing methods result in model collapse after only few edits. To facilitate further research, we have utilized GPT-3.5 to develop a new dataset, HardEdit, based on those hard cases. This dataset aims to establish the foundation for pioneering research in reliable model editing and the mechanisms underlying editing-induced model collapse. We hope this work can draw the community’s attention to the potential risks inherent in model editing practices.

Despite significant progress in model editing methods, their application in real-world scenarios remains challenging as they often cause large language models (LLMs) to collapse. Among them, ROME is particularly concerning, as it could disrupt LLMs with only a single edit. In this paper, we study the root causes of such collapse. Through extensive analysis, we identify two primary factors that contribute to the collapse: i) inconsistent handling of prefixed and unprefixed keys in the parameter update equation may result in very small denominators, causing excessively large parameter updates; ii) the subject of collapse cases is usually the first token, whose unprefixed key distribution significantly differs from the prefixed key distribution in autoregressive transformers, causing the aforementioned issue to materialize. To validate our findings, we propose a simple yet effective approach: uniformly using prefixed keys during editing phase and adding prefixes during testing phase to ensure the consistency between training and testing. The experimental results show that the proposed solution can prevent model collapse while maintaining the effectiveness of the edits.

While auxiliary information has become a key to enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs), relatively little is known about how LLMs merge these contexts, specifically contexts generated by LLMs and those retrieved from external sources.To investigate this, we formulate a systematic framework to identify whether LLMs’ responses are attributed to either generated or retrieved contexts.To easily trace the origin of the response, we construct datasets with conflicting contexts, i.e., each question is paired with both generated and retrieved contexts, yet only one of them contains the correct answer.Our experiments reveal a significant bias in several LLMs (GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2) to favor generated contexts, even when they provide incorrect information.We further identify two key factors contributing to this bias: i) contexts generated by LLMs typically show greater similarity to the questions, increasing their likelihood of being selected; ii) the segmentation process used in retrieved contexts disrupts their completeness, thereby hindering their full utilization in LLMs.Our analysis enhances the understanding of how LLMs merge diverse contexts, offers valuable insights for advancing current LLM augmentation methods, and highlights the risk of generated misinformation for retrieval-augmented LLMs.