Source-linked AI summary
History Matters: Temporal Knowledge Editing in Large Language Model
Xunjian Yin, Jin Jiang, Liming Yang, Xiaojun Wan
TL;DR
Knowledge editing must distinguish correcting model errors from updating knowledge that has become outdated, because updates should retain historical facts alongside new ones. The paper introduces TKE and ATOKE, then proposes METO, which edits historical and current knowledge while optimizing fact times; existing methods forget historical knowledge, whereas METO substantially improves historical-knowledge use while retaining new-knowledge learning.
Problem
Existing knowledge-editing methods conflate correcting model errors with updating outdated knowledge and ignore the need to preserve historical facts during updates.
Source: Introduction · pp. 1–2Method
The paper introduces TKE and ATOKE, and proposes METO to edit historical and new knowledge while optimizing the predicted time of each fact.
Source: Introduction · p. 2Results
Existing methods memorize new knowledge but catastrophically forget historical knowledge, while METO substantially improves historical-knowledge performance and maintains new-knowledge learning.
Source: Introduction · p. 2, Results on ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME · p. 7Takeaways & Limitations
Temporal knowledge editing should evaluate and preserve chronology rather than measuring only whether new facts are memorized.
Source: Introduction · p. 2, Conclusion · p. 7Temporal knowledge editing remains difficult, and historical-knowledge performance after improvement is still far from satisfactory.
Source: Results on ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME · p. 7
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
The imperative task of revising or updating the knowledge stored within large language models arises from two distinct sources: intrinsic errors inherent in the model which should be corrected and outdated knowledge due to external shifts in the real world which should be updated. Prevailing efforts in model editing conflate these two distinct categories of edits arising from distinct reasons and directly modify the original knowledge in models into new knowledge. However, we argue that preserving the model's original knowledge remains pertinent. Specifically, if a model's knowledge becomes outdated due to evolving worldly dynamics, it should retain recollection of the historical knowledge while integrating the newfound knowledge. In this work, we introduce the task of Temporal Knowledge Editing (TKE) and establish a benchmark AToKe (Assessment of TempOral Knowledge Editing) to evaluate current model editing methods. We find that while existing model editing methods are effective at making models remember new knowledge, the edited model catastrophically forgets historical knowledge. To address this gap, we propose a simple and general framework termed Multi-Editing with Time Objective (METO) for enhancing existing editing models, which edits both historical and new knowledge concurrently and optimizes the model's prediction for the time of each fact. Our assessments demonstrate that while AToKe is still difficult, METO maintains the effectiveness of learning new knowledge and meanwhile substantially improves the performance of edited models on utilizing historical knowledge.
Introduction
Knowledge editing must distinguish correcting intrinsic model errors from updating knowledge that has become outdated, because updates should preserve historical facts while adding current ones. The paper introduces TKE and ATOKE, shows existing methods forget historical knowledge, and proposes METO to edit knowledge with temporal awareness.
Motivation
- Existing knowledge-editing methods focus on memorizing new knowledge while ignoring whether relevant historical knowledge remains available.The paper distinguishes knowledge correction from knowledge updating and argues that updating should retain historical facts.Source: Introduction · p. 1
Benchmark
- ATOKE evaluates historical preservation by testing single, multiple, and extending edits on time-stamped world knowledge.After each edit, the benchmark asks about both historical and current knowledge.Source: Introduction · p. 2
Findings
- Existing methods memorize new knowledge effectively but can cause temporal confusion, such as making knowledge of a former president disappear.The paper reports this behavior in evaluations on ATOKE.Source: Figure 1 · p. 1, Introduction · p. 2
Method
- METO edits historical and new knowledge concurrently while optimizing the model’s prediction of each fact’s time.It is presented as a simple, general framework for enhancing existing editing methods.Source: Introduction · p. 2
Contributions
- The paper contributes a distinction between editing scenarios, the TKE task and ATOKE benchmark, and the METO framework.These contributions target historical-knowledge distortion in existing editing methods.Source: Introduction · p. 2
Temporal Knowledge Editing
Temporal Knowledge Editing treats updates as changes to time-scoped facts that should preserve chronological access to both current and historical knowledge. It defines requirements for what editing should change or preserve and evaluates single, multiple, and duration-extending updates.
Requirements for Knowledge Editing
- A good editing method should change the edited knowledge and its associated expressions while preserving unrelated knowledge and abilities.The evaluation includes edit success, paraphrase success, multi-hop accuracy, neighborhood success, reference score, and generation entropy.Source: Requirements for Knowledge Editing · p. 2, Aspects of Change · p. 3, Aspects of Constancy · p. 3
Task Definition
- Knowledge is represented as time-scoped facts (s, r, o, ts, tu), where the same subject-relation pair can map to different objects across successive periods.An edit changes an earlier object to a later object with a new temporal scope.Source: Task Definition · p. 3
Temporal Knowledge Editing
- TKE concerns knowledge made outdated by the flow of time, rather than original model errors, and requires historical knowledge to remain available after updates.The model should answer questions about former facts and facts valid at specified past times.Source: Task Definition · p. 3, Aspects of Constancy · p. 3
Evaluation of Temporal Knowledge Editing
- TSE tests chronology after one update, TME tests ordered succession after repeated updates to the same subject and relation, and TEE tests whether a fact’s duration is prolonged.TME differs from mass editing because it repeatedly updates the same subject-relation pair across time scopes.Source: Evaluation of Temporal Knowledge Editing · p. 3
ATOKE: Assessment of Temporal Knowledge Editing
ATOKE is a benchmark for evaluating whether knowledge-editing methods handle temporal information across three types of edits.
Benchmark structure
- ATOKE contains single-edit, multiple-edit, and extending-edit datasets for evaluating temporal knowledge editing.They are named ATOKE-SE, ATOKE-ME, and ATOKE-EE, respectively.Source: ATOKE: Assessment of Temporal… · p. 3
Basic Temporal Knowledge Collection
The benchmark constructs temporal fact chains from time-scoped YAGO facts, identifies each model’s latest recalled fact, appends future counterfactual facts, and generates questions at explicit or relative times.
Sampling time series facts
- Temporal fact chains are sampled from YAGO3.0.34 by grouping facts by subject and relation, sorting them by start time, and filtering contradictory overlaps.Each chain contains facts with subject, relation, object, start time, and end time.Source: Sampling time series facts · pp. 3–4
Locating Time of Model Facts
- The model’s initial knowledge is defined as the most recent fact in each chain that GPT-J successfully recalls.The dataset first filters out subject-relation pairs absent from the model.Source: Locating Time of Model Facts · p. 4
Sampling Future Fake facts
- Future fake facts extend chains beyond 2022 by appending a same-class counterfactual object assigned a reasonable random time scope.This ensures every model receives new knowledge for updates and supports longer-term benchmark use.Source: Sampling Future Fake facts · p. 4
Generating Temporal natural language questions
- Questions are generated from relation-specific templates and divided into explicit-time and relative-time questions.ChatGPT generates candidate questions, which are then manually filtered.Source: Generating Temporal natural language… · p. 4
Construction of Three Datasets
AToKe constructs three temporal editing datasets that test single updates, repeated updates, and extensions of existing facts. Together, they query historical and current knowledge across different editing scenarios.
Construction of Three Datasets
- The dataset construction begins from each chain’s first fact, which represents the model’s current knowledge before editing.Source: Construction of Three Datasets · p. 4
ATOKE-SE
- ATOKE-SE uses the first two facts in each temporal chain for one edit and evaluates both historical and current facts.Source: ATOKE-SE · p. 4
ATOKE-ME
- ATOKE-ME applies successive edits across each chain and asks questions about facts within every resulting time scope.Source: ATOKE-ME · p. 4
ATOKE-EE
- ATOKE-EE extends a current fact’s time scope without changing its target entity, simulating knowledge that remains unchanged in the future.Source: ATOKE-EE · p. 4
Dataset Summary
The ATOKE datasets share a common temporal-fact format but vary in edit count and question coverage. Their underlying collection contains 8,820 filtered chains spanning mostly short temporal sequences and years through 2028 after augmentation.
Dataset format
- The datasets contain edit sets, questions, standardized answers, and aliases, with historical and current questions for single and multiple edits but only current questions for extending edits.Source: Dataset format · pp. 4–5
Data statistics
- 8,820 temporal chains remain after filtering 169,996 sampled chains through GPT-J, with more than 90% having lengths of 2–5 facts.Source: Data statistics · p. 5
- Future counterfactual facts extend the latest real knowledge from 2022 to 2028, supporting a benchmark that remains usable for future updates.Source: Data statistics · p. 5
Evaluation Metrics
ATOKE evaluates temporal editing across historical and current knowledge using relative-time and explicit-time questions. Multiple-edit evaluation additionally reports performance after all edits, while extending edits omit historical metrics.
Evaluation Metrics
- ATOKE reports HRS, HES, CRS, CES, and CES-P for historical or current knowledge under relative, explicit, and paraphrased explicit-time questions.Source: Evaluation Metrics · p. 5
- Multiple edits additionally report HES* after all consecutive edits, whereas extending edits exclude HRS and HES because they contain no historical knowledge.Source: Evaluation Metrics · p. 5
Current Status on TKE
The benchmark evaluates parameter-editing methods on GPT-J and shows a central temporal failure: models learn new facts but lose historical knowledge, especially under repeated edits. Extending an existing fact’s time scope is comparatively easier.
Knowledge Editing Methods
- The comparison evaluates CFT, MEND, ROME, and MEMIT on ATOKE, with ROME slightly outperforming MEMIT and CFT performing poorly.Source: Knowledge Editing Methods · p. 5, Results and Analysis · p. 5
Language Model to be Edited
- The experiments use GPT-J (6B) as the base language model and extend prior editing inputs with temporal information.Source: Knowledge Editing Methods · p. 5, Language Model to be Edited · p. 5
Results and Analysis
- Figure 3 depicts METO querying current knowledge, jointly optimizing historical and current targets, and adding a time objective to model editing.Source: Figure 3 · p. 6
- Existing editors generally memorize new knowledge but perform disastrously on historical knowledge because they optimize current knowledge while ignoring the past.Source: Results and Analysis · pp. 5–6
- Relative-time questions are harder than explicit-time questions because they require reasoning about the ordering of facts rather than merely recalling dates.Source: Results and Analysis · p. 6
- Multiple edits worsen performance, with HES at about 0.2% after editing and earlier injected knowledge invalidated by the last edit.Source: Results and Analysis · p. 6
- Extending a fact’s time scope performs best because the current knowledge remains unchanged and only its temporal validity is extended.Source: Results and Analysis · p. 6
METO: Multi-Editing with Time Objective
METO enhances model-editing methods by jointly preserving model-time historical knowledge and learning new knowledge while explicitly optimizing temporal predictions. On ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME, it largely preserves current-knowledge performance and substantially improves historical-knowledge performance, though temporal editing remains difficult.
METO: Multi-Editing with Time Objective
- Existing methods memorize new knowledge effectively but catastrophically forget historical knowledge after editing, motivating METO’s multi-editing design.The experiments also find that relative-time questions are harder than explicit-time questions and that more edits worsen performance; METO mitigates both effects to some extent.Source: METO: Multi-Editing with Time Objective · p. 6, Results on ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME · p. 7
Methodology
- The framework uses timestamps during model editing and optimizes knowledge-time objectives, including changing the editing target from an object to its corresponding time, to reinforce historical and new knowledge.For a prompt about Donald Trump’s presidency, the model is edited with ROME or other methods to optimize the probability of the period 2017 to 2021.Source: Methodology · p. 6, Time Objective Optimization · p. 7
Model-time Knowledge Extraction
- METO extracts model-time knowledge, combines it with knowledge requiring new capture, and edits the resulting target set with methods such as MEND, ROME, or MEMIT.The implementation adds timestamps to the original methods’ cloze statements.Source: Model-time Knowledge Extraction · p. 6, Multi-editing on Both Historical and… · p. 6
Multi-editing on Both Historical and Current Knowledge
- METO uses only knowledge occurring at model time as historical knowledge because earlier past knowledge is assumed already known and unchanged.Model-time knowledge is instead marked as knowledge whose duration has ended and shifted from present to past.Source: Multi-editing on Both Historical and… · pp. 6–7
Results on ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME
- METO greatly improves historical-knowledge performance while causing little change to current-knowledge performance on ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME.ROME remains strongest on current knowledge, whereas MEND and MEMIT perform better on historical knowledge under the framework.Source: Results on ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME · p. 7
- HES∗ on ATOKE-ME rises from below 0.3 to above 15 with METO, except for CFT.This improvement indicates that edited models retain some previously injected knowledge on the most difficult metric.Source: Results on ATOKE-SE and ATOKE-ME · p. 7, Table 3 · p. 7
Related Work
Prior knowledge-editing work develops targeted, auxiliary-network, neuron-based, and locate-then-edit methods, while evaluation mainly tests edit success and collateral effects. These evaluations generally omit whether relevant historical knowledge remains preserved.
Related Work
- Knowledge-editing methods include constrained finetuning, symbolic or patch-based correction, hypernetworks, knowledge-neuron editing, locate-then-edit methods, and auxiliary editing networks.Examples include ROME, MEMIT, and MEMIT-CSK for targeted or commonsense factual editing.Source: Related Work · p. 7
- Existing evaluations assess successful editing, preservation of unrelated knowledge, inference from injected facts, multi-hop effects, and ripple effects, but not preservation of relevant historical knowledge.The paper identifies historical-knowledge preservation as an important missing evaluation dimension.Source: Related Work · p. 7
Conclusion
The paper classifies knowledge-editing scenarios, introduces TKE and the ATOKE benchmark, and shows that existing methods distort historical knowledge. METO improves earlier approaches, but TKE remains challenging and requires further work.
Conclusion
- The paper introduces Temporal Knowledge Editing and ATOKE to evaluate historical-knowledge preservation, while showing that existing methods catastrophically forget historical knowledge.It also presents METO as an enhancement to preceding editing approaches.Source: Conclusion · p. 7