博士:评估基于文档的知识编辑

IF 6.9 1区 管理学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Suhang Wu , Ante Wang , Minlong Peng , Yujie Lin , Wenbo Li , Mingming Sun , Jinsong Su
{"title":"博士:评估基于文档的知识编辑","authors":"Suhang Wu ,&nbsp;Ante Wang ,&nbsp;Minlong Peng ,&nbsp;Yujie Lin ,&nbsp;Wenbo Li ,&nbsp;Mingming Sun ,&nbsp;Jinsong Su","doi":"10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Knowledge editing aims to correct outdated or inaccurate knowledge in neural networks.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, <em>DocTER</em>, featuring <u>Doc</u>uments containing coun<u>TER</u>factual knowledge for editing. A comprehensive four-perspective evaluation is introduced: <em>Edit Success</em>, <em>Locality</em>, <em>Reasoning</em>, and <em>Cross-lingual Transfer</em>, comprising 2,000, 2,000, 583, 1,000 test cases, respectively. To adapt conventional triplet-based knowledge editing methods for this task, we develop an <em>Extract-then-Edit</em> 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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50365,"journal":{"name":"Information Processing & Management","volume":"63 1","pages":"Article 104299"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DocTER: Evaluating document-based knowledge editing\",\"authors\":\"Suhang Wu ,&nbsp;Ante Wang ,&nbsp;Minlong Peng ,&nbsp;Yujie Lin ,&nbsp;Wenbo Li ,&nbsp;Mingming Sun ,&nbsp;Jinsong Su\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104299\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>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, <em>DocTER</em>, featuring <u>Doc</u>uments containing coun<u>TER</u>factual knowledge for editing. A comprehensive four-perspective evaluation is introduced: <em>Edit Success</em>, <em>Locality</em>, <em>Reasoning</em>, and <em>Cross-lingual Transfer</em>, comprising 2,000, 2,000, 583, 1,000 test cases, respectively. To adapt conventional triplet-based knowledge editing methods for this task, we develop an <em>Extract-then-Edit</em> 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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information Processing & Management\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 104299\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information Processing & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457325002407\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Processing & Management","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457325002407","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

知识编辑的目的是纠正神经网络中过时或不准确的知识。在本文中,我们探索使用易于访问的文档来编辑知识,而不是在早期研究中使用手动标记的事实三元组。为了推进这一领域,我们建立了第一个评估基准DocTER,以包含反事实知识的文档为特征进行编辑。介绍了一个全面的四视角评估:编辑成功、局域性、推理和跨语言迁移,分别包含2,000、2,000、583,1,000个测试用例。为了使传统的基于三元组的知识编辑方法适应此任务,我们开发了一个“提取-然后编辑”管道,该管道在应用现有方法之前从文档中提取三元组。对常用知识编辑方法的实验表明,使用文档进行编辑比使用三元组具有更大的挑战性。在基于文档的场景中,即使是表现最好的上下文编辑方法,与使用黄金三元组相比,在编辑成功方面仍然落后10分。这一观察结果也适用于推理和跨语言测试集。我们进一步分析了影响任务绩效的关键因素,包括提取三元组的质量、编辑知识在文档中的频率和位置、各种增强推理的方法以及跨语言知识编辑中不同方向的绩效差异,为未来的研究提供了有价值的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
DocTER: Evaluating document-based knowledge editing
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, DocTER, featuring Documents containing counTERfactual knowledge for editing. A comprehensive four-perspective evaluation is introduced: Edit Success, Locality, Reasoning, and Cross-lingual Transfer, comprising 2,000, 2,000, 583, 1,000 test cases, respectively. 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Information Processing & Management
Information Processing & Management 工程技术-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
17.00
自引率
11.60%
发文量
276
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Information Processing and Management is dedicated to publishing cutting-edge original research at the convergence of computing and information science. Our scope encompasses theory, methods, and applications across various domains, including advertising, business, health, information science, information technology marketing, and social computing. We aim to cater to the interests of both primary researchers and practitioners by offering an effective platform for the timely dissemination of advanced and topical issues in this interdisciplinary field. The journal places particular emphasis on original research articles, research survey articles, research method articles, and articles addressing critical applications of research. Join us in advancing knowledge and innovation at the intersection of computing and information science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信