The Fall of ROME: Understanding the Collapse of LLMs in Model Editing

Wanli Yang, Fei Sun, Jiajun Tan, Xinyu Ma, Du Su, Dawei Yin, Huawei Shen·June 17, 2024

Summary

The paper investigates the collapse of large language models, specifically under Rank-One Model Editing (ROME), focusing on GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b. Two main causes are identified: inconsistent handling of prefixed and unprefixed keys leads to unstable parameter updates and a unique issue with the first token's distribution. The authors propose C-ROME, which uniformly uses prefixed keys and adds prefixes during testing, preventing collapse without compromising editing effectiveness. The study reveals that the first token's representation plays a crucial role in collapse, particularly in autoregressive models like GPT. T5-3B, an encoder-decoder model, is found to be less susceptible to this issue. The paper highlights the need for further research on addressing collapse in LLMs, especially for encoder-decoder architectures, and suggests that the problem may be more pronounced in autoregressive models. Visualizations help to illustrate the differences in key and token distributions.

Key findings

2

Paper digest

What problem does the paper attempt to solve? Is this a new problem?

The paper aims to address the issue of model collapse in large language models (LLMs) during model editing, specifically focusing on the collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME . This problem is not entirely new, as previous works have highlighted the risks associated with model editing and the potential compromise of LLM capabilities . The study delves into the root causes of model collapse induced by ROME, identifying factors such as inconsistent handling of keys in parameter updating and anomalous distribution of the first token in GPT-like models . The paper provides a detailed analysis of these factors and proposes a straightforward solution to prevent model collapse while maintaining editing efficacy .


What scientific hypothesis does this paper seek to validate?

This paper seeks to validate the scientific hypothesis that the collapse of large language models (LLMs) triggered by a single edit, as observed in the case of ROME, arises from two primary factors:

  1. Inconsistent handling of prefixed and unprefixed keys in the parameter update equation, leading to very small denominators and excessively large parameter updates.
  2. The subjects of collapse cases are typically the first tokens, with their unprefixed key distribution significantly differing from the prefixed key distribution in autoregressive transformers, causing the issues to manifest .

What new ideas, methods, or models does the paper propose? What are the characteristics and advantages compared to previous methods?

The paper introduces several novel ideas, methods, and models in the realm of large language models (LLMs) and model editing:

  1. C-ROME Solution: The paper proposes a solution called C-ROME to address the model collapse issue in ROME, which aims to maintain the stability of edited models. However, C-ROME faces challenges in integrating target knowledge effectively into the model, leading to low efficacy and generalization .

  2. Analysis of Model Collapse: The research delves into the root causes of LLM collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME. It identifies irregularities in the implementation of keys as a primary factor leading to collapse. The paper highlights that collapse cases are often associated with the first tokens in autoregressive models, showcasing distinct distribution patterns compared to subsequent tokens .

  3. Parameter Update Process Investigation: The study investigates the differences in the parameter update process of ROME between collapse and normal cases. It reveals that collapse arises from anomalies in the denominator of the parameter update equation, particularly due to irregular key implementation. This issue has been independently identified by other researchers as well .

  4. Performance Evaluation: The paper evaluates the performance of C-ROME across various LLMs, including GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b, on both collapse and normal cases. The results show differences in efficacy, generalization, and locality metrics, emphasizing the importance of consistent key handling during editing and testing phases to prevent model collapse effectively .

  5. Experimental Validation: To validate the proposed solution, the paper suggests uniformly using prefixed keys during the editing phase and adding prefixes during the testing phase. This approach aims to prevent model collapse while ensuring the effectiveness of edits. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of this method in maintaining model stability .

Overall, the paper contributes valuable insights into understanding the collapse of LLMs during model editing, identifies key factors leading to collapse, and proposes practical solutions to mitigate these issues and enhance the stability and performance of large language models .

Characteristics and Advantages of C-ROME Solution:

  1. Characteristics of C-ROME:

    • Key Handling: C-ROME addresses the model collapse issue in ROME by focusing on the irregularities in key implementation during parameter updating, particularly the use of prefixed and unprefixed keys .
    • Model Stability: The solution aims to maintain the stability of edited models by adjusting the transformation matrix to match subject key vectors with new fact value vectors .
    • Performance Evaluation: C-ROME's performance varies across different large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b, showcasing differences in efficacy, generalization, and locality metrics .
  2. Advantages of C-ROME:

    • Prevention of Collapse: C-ROME effectively prevents model collapse by introducing a straightforward solution that involves appending a random prefix during the testing phase to ensure consistency with the editing process .
    • Enhanced Stability: By unifying all keys as prefixed during editing and ensuring consistency in the testing phase, C-ROME successfully maintains model stability and prevents collapse cases .
    • Efficacy Improvement: Despite limitations in integrating target knowledge into the model, C-ROME significantly enhances the efficacy for models like GPT-2-XL and GPT-J, contributing to improved model performance .

Comparison with Previous Methods:

  1. Key Differences from Previous Methods:

    • Improved Stability: Unlike previous methods, C-ROME specifically targets irregularities in key handling and distribution, leading to enhanced stability and prevention of model collapse .
    • Focus on Key Implementation: C-ROME's emphasis on consistent key handling during editing and testing phases sets it apart from earlier approaches, ensuring the effectiveness of edits and preventing collapse effectively .
  2. Unique Contributions:

    • Thorough Investigation: C-ROME's unique contribution lies in its comprehensive investigation into the root causes of model collapse triggered by ROME, leading to the development of a practical solution to address these issues .
    • Experimental Validation: The solution's effectiveness is validated through experiments across various LLMs, demonstrating its ability to prevent collapse and maintain model stability, thus offering a valuable advancement in the field of model editing .

Do any related researches exist? Who are the noteworthy researchers on this topic in this field?What is the key to the solution mentioned in the paper?

Several related research papers exist in the field of model editing and collapse of large language models (LLMs). Noteworthy researchers in this area include Akshat Gupta, Anurag Rao, Gopala Anumanchipalli, Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J. Liu, Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Laurens Van der Maaten, Geoffrey Hinton, Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, Illia Polosukhin, Wanli Yang, Fei Sun, Xinyu Ma, Xun Liu, Dawei Yin, Xueqi Cheng, Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, Omer Levy, Jia-Chen Gu, Hao-Xiang Xu, Jun-Yu Ma, Pan Lu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Kai-Wei Chang, Nanyun Peng, Yunzhi Yao, Peng Wang, Bozhong Tian, Siyuan Cheng, Zhoubo Li, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Zekun Xi, Shengyu Mao, Jintian Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Ziwen Xu, Xin Xu, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Lei Liang, Zhiqiang Zhang, Xiaowei Zhu, Jun Zhou, among others .

The key to the solution mentioned in the paper to prevent model collapse during model editing involves uniformly using prefixed keys during the editing phase and adding random text prefixes during the testing phase. This approach ensures consistency in the key vectors used and helps maintain the effectiveness of the edits, thereby preventing model collapse .


How were the experiments in the paper designed?

The experiments in the paper were designed to thoroughly investigate the underlying causes of LLM's collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME. The experiments aimed to identify the reasons for ROME's collapse, which arise from irregularities in the official implementation of ROME and anomalous distribution of the first token in GPT-like models . The study conducted extensive experiments to validate the effectiveness of a straightforward method proposed to address the model collapse issue of ROME . Additionally, the experiments focused on investigating the differences in the parameter update process of ROME between collapse cases and normal cases to uncover the root causes of model collapse . The paper also acknowledged limitations, such as focusing primarily on GPT-2-XL and GPT-J models and leaving an in-depth investigation into the anomalous representation distribution of the first token in autoregressive models for future research .


What is the dataset used for quantitative evaluation? Is the code open source?

The dataset used for quantitative evaluation in the study is the ME-PPL50 dataset, which was validated for its effectiveness by Yang et al. . The code used in the study will be released after the review process ends .


Do the experiments and results in the paper provide good support for the scientific hypotheses that need to be verified? Please analyze.

The experiments and results presented in the paper provide strong support for the scientific hypotheses that needed verification. The study thoroughly investigates the root causes of model collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME in large language models (LLMs) . The analysis identifies two primary factors contributing to the collapse: inconsistent handling of prefixed and unprefixed keys in the parameter update equation and the unique distribution of the first token's key in autoregressive transformers . The experiments conducted in the paper validate these findings and propose a straightforward solution to prevent model collapse while maintaining editing effectiveness . The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed solution in addressing the model collapse issue of ROME .


What are the contributions of this paper?

The contributions of the paper "The Fall of ROME: Understanding the Collapse of LLMs in Model Editing" include:

  • Thorough investigation into the underlying causes of Large Language Models (LLMs) collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME, highlighting irregularities in the official implementation of ROME and anomalous distribution of the first token in GPT-like models .
  • Proposal of a straightforward method to address the model collapse issue of ROME and validation of its effectiveness through experiments .
  • Acknowledgment of limitations such as focusing primarily on GPT-2-XL and GPT-J, successful prevention of collapse in Llama2-7b, and leaving in-depth investigation into the anomalous representation distribution of the first token in autoregressive models for future research .
  • Intention to investigate the root causes of model collapse in sequential editing and devise more robust editing methods for superior performance across various scenarios in future research .

What work can be continued in depth?

Further research can delve deeper into several aspects related to model collapse in sequential editing:

  • Investigating the anomalous representation distribution of the first token in autoregressive models for a more in-depth analysis .
  • Exploring the root causes of model collapse triggered by the cumulative effects of sequential editing, which is a phenomenon observed in existing works but was not the primary focus of the current research .
  • Conducting a detailed examination of the characteristics and patterns of collapse cases in different large language models to understand the specific factors contributing to model collapse .
  • Addressing the irregularities in the implementation of keys in the parameter update equation that lead to excessively large parameter updates and model collapse, as identified in the study .
  • Investigating the differences in the parameter update process between collapse cases and normal cases to gain insights into the specific mechanisms that result in model collapse .

Tables

3

Introduction
Background
Overview of Rank-One Model Editing (ROME) and its significance
GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b: Models under scrutiny
Objective
Identification of collapse causes in LLMs
Introducing C-ROME: A proposed solution
Methodology
Data Collection
Selection of models (GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, Llama2-7b, and T5-3B)
ROME experiments and data generation
Data Analysis
Inconsistent Handling of Prefixed and Unprefixed Keys
Identification of the issue in GPT-2-XL and GPT-J
Impact on parameter updates
First Token Distribution and Collapse
Focus on autoregressive models (GPT)
Analysis of T5-3B as a contrasting case
C-ROME: Proposed Solution
Implementation details
Testing and effectiveness of C-ROME
Causes and Implications
Unstable Parameter Updates
Mechanism behind the instability
Comparison with encoder-decoder models (T5-3B)
First Token Representation and Collapse
The role of the first token in autoregressive models
Potential for encoder-decoder models
Visualizations and Insights
Key and token distribution visualizations
Supporting evidence for collapse patterns
Conclusion
Summary of findings
Future research directions
Addressing collapse in LLMs, especially for encoder-decoder architectures
Importance of further investigation in autoregressive models.
Basic info
papers
computation and language
artificial intelligence
Advanced features
Insights
What are the main models investigated in the paper regarding the collapse under Rank-One Model Editing (ROME)?
How does C-ROME address the issue of collapse in large language models, and what is its impact on editing effectiveness?
What are the two main causes of collapse in GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b identified by the paper?
How does the first token's representation contribute to the collapse, and which type of model is more susceptible to this issue: autoregressive or encoder-decoder?

The Fall of ROME: Understanding the Collapse of LLMs in Model Editing

Wanli Yang, Fei Sun, Jiajun Tan, Xinyu Ma, Du Su, Dawei Yin, Huawei Shen·June 17, 2024

Summary

The paper investigates the collapse of large language models, specifically under Rank-One Model Editing (ROME), focusing on GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b. Two main causes are identified: inconsistent handling of prefixed and unprefixed keys leads to unstable parameter updates and a unique issue with the first token's distribution. The authors propose C-ROME, which uniformly uses prefixed keys and adds prefixes during testing, preventing collapse without compromising editing effectiveness. The study reveals that the first token's representation plays a crucial role in collapse, particularly in autoregressive models like GPT. T5-3B, an encoder-decoder model, is found to be less susceptible to this issue. The paper highlights the need for further research on addressing collapse in LLMs, especially for encoder-decoder architectures, and suggests that the problem may be more pronounced in autoregressive models. Visualizations help to illustrate the differences in key and token distributions.
Mind map
Analysis of T5-3B as a contrasting case
Focus on autoregressive models (GPT)
Impact on parameter updates
Identification of the issue in GPT-2-XL and GPT-J
Potential for encoder-decoder models
The role of the first token in autoregressive models
Comparison with encoder-decoder models (T5-3B)
Mechanism behind the instability
Testing and effectiveness of C-ROME
Implementation details
First Token Distribution and Collapse
Inconsistent Handling of Prefixed and Unprefixed Keys
ROME experiments and data generation
Selection of models (GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, Llama2-7b, and T5-3B)
Introducing C-ROME: A proposed solution
Identification of collapse causes in LLMs
GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b: Models under scrutiny
Overview of Rank-One Model Editing (ROME) and its significance
Importance of further investigation in autoregressive models.
Addressing collapse in LLMs, especially for encoder-decoder architectures
Future research directions
Summary of findings
Supporting evidence for collapse patterns
Key and token distribution visualizations
First Token Representation and Collapse
Unstable Parameter Updates
C-ROME: Proposed Solution
Data Analysis
Data Collection
Objective
Background
Conclusion
Visualizations and Insights
Causes and Implications
Methodology
Introduction
Outline
Introduction
Background
Overview of Rank-One Model Editing (ROME) and its significance
GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b: Models under scrutiny
Objective
Identification of collapse causes in LLMs
Introducing C-ROME: A proposed solution
Methodology
Data Collection
Selection of models (GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, Llama2-7b, and T5-3B)
ROME experiments and data generation
Data Analysis
Inconsistent Handling of Prefixed and Unprefixed Keys
Identification of the issue in GPT-2-XL and GPT-J
Impact on parameter updates
First Token Distribution and Collapse
Focus on autoregressive models (GPT)
Analysis of T5-3B as a contrasting case
C-ROME: Proposed Solution
Implementation details
Testing and effectiveness of C-ROME
Causes and Implications
Unstable Parameter Updates
Mechanism behind the instability
Comparison with encoder-decoder models (T5-3B)
First Token Representation and Collapse
The role of the first token in autoregressive models
Potential for encoder-decoder models
Visualizations and Insights
Key and token distribution visualizations
Supporting evidence for collapse patterns
Conclusion
Summary of findings
Future research directions
Addressing collapse in LLMs, especially for encoder-decoder architectures
Importance of further investigation in autoregressive models.
Key findings
2

Paper digest

What problem does the paper attempt to solve? Is this a new problem?

The paper aims to address the issue of model collapse in large language models (LLMs) during model editing, specifically focusing on the collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME . This problem is not entirely new, as previous works have highlighted the risks associated with model editing and the potential compromise of LLM capabilities . The study delves into the root causes of model collapse induced by ROME, identifying factors such as inconsistent handling of keys in parameter updating and anomalous distribution of the first token in GPT-like models . The paper provides a detailed analysis of these factors and proposes a straightforward solution to prevent model collapse while maintaining editing efficacy .


What scientific hypothesis does this paper seek to validate?

This paper seeks to validate the scientific hypothesis that the collapse of large language models (LLMs) triggered by a single edit, as observed in the case of ROME, arises from two primary factors:

  1. Inconsistent handling of prefixed and unprefixed keys in the parameter update equation, leading to very small denominators and excessively large parameter updates.
  2. The subjects of collapse cases are typically the first tokens, with their unprefixed key distribution significantly differing from the prefixed key distribution in autoregressive transformers, causing the issues to manifest .

What new ideas, methods, or models does the paper propose? What are the characteristics and advantages compared to previous methods?

The paper introduces several novel ideas, methods, and models in the realm of large language models (LLMs) and model editing:

  1. C-ROME Solution: The paper proposes a solution called C-ROME to address the model collapse issue in ROME, which aims to maintain the stability of edited models. However, C-ROME faces challenges in integrating target knowledge effectively into the model, leading to low efficacy and generalization .

  2. Analysis of Model Collapse: The research delves into the root causes of LLM collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME. It identifies irregularities in the implementation of keys as a primary factor leading to collapse. The paper highlights that collapse cases are often associated with the first tokens in autoregressive models, showcasing distinct distribution patterns compared to subsequent tokens .

  3. Parameter Update Process Investigation: The study investigates the differences in the parameter update process of ROME between collapse and normal cases. It reveals that collapse arises from anomalies in the denominator of the parameter update equation, particularly due to irregular key implementation. This issue has been independently identified by other researchers as well .

  4. Performance Evaluation: The paper evaluates the performance of C-ROME across various LLMs, including GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b, on both collapse and normal cases. The results show differences in efficacy, generalization, and locality metrics, emphasizing the importance of consistent key handling during editing and testing phases to prevent model collapse effectively .

  5. Experimental Validation: To validate the proposed solution, the paper suggests uniformly using prefixed keys during the editing phase and adding prefixes during the testing phase. This approach aims to prevent model collapse while ensuring the effectiveness of edits. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of this method in maintaining model stability .

Overall, the paper contributes valuable insights into understanding the collapse of LLMs during model editing, identifies key factors leading to collapse, and proposes practical solutions to mitigate these issues and enhance the stability and performance of large language models .

Characteristics and Advantages of C-ROME Solution:

  1. Characteristics of C-ROME:

    • Key Handling: C-ROME addresses the model collapse issue in ROME by focusing on the irregularities in key implementation during parameter updating, particularly the use of prefixed and unprefixed keys .
    • Model Stability: The solution aims to maintain the stability of edited models by adjusting the transformation matrix to match subject key vectors with new fact value vectors .
    • Performance Evaluation: C-ROME's performance varies across different large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-2-XL, GPT-J, and Llama2-7b, showcasing differences in efficacy, generalization, and locality metrics .
  2. Advantages of C-ROME:

    • Prevention of Collapse: C-ROME effectively prevents model collapse by introducing a straightforward solution that involves appending a random prefix during the testing phase to ensure consistency with the editing process .
    • Enhanced Stability: By unifying all keys as prefixed during editing and ensuring consistency in the testing phase, C-ROME successfully maintains model stability and prevents collapse cases .
    • Efficacy Improvement: Despite limitations in integrating target knowledge into the model, C-ROME significantly enhances the efficacy for models like GPT-2-XL and GPT-J, contributing to improved model performance .

Comparison with Previous Methods:

  1. Key Differences from Previous Methods:

    • Improved Stability: Unlike previous methods, C-ROME specifically targets irregularities in key handling and distribution, leading to enhanced stability and prevention of model collapse .
    • Focus on Key Implementation: C-ROME's emphasis on consistent key handling during editing and testing phases sets it apart from earlier approaches, ensuring the effectiveness of edits and preventing collapse effectively .
  2. Unique Contributions:

    • Thorough Investigation: C-ROME's unique contribution lies in its comprehensive investigation into the root causes of model collapse triggered by ROME, leading to the development of a practical solution to address these issues .
    • Experimental Validation: The solution's effectiveness is validated through experiments across various LLMs, demonstrating its ability to prevent collapse and maintain model stability, thus offering a valuable advancement in the field of model editing .

Do any related researches exist? Who are the noteworthy researchers on this topic in this field?What is the key to the solution mentioned in the paper?

Several related research papers exist in the field of model editing and collapse of large language models (LLMs). Noteworthy researchers in this area include Akshat Gupta, Anurag Rao, Gopala Anumanchipalli, Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J. Liu, Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Laurens Van der Maaten, Geoffrey Hinton, Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, Illia Polosukhin, Wanli Yang, Fei Sun, Xinyu Ma, Xun Liu, Dawei Yin, Xueqi Cheng, Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, Omer Levy, Jia-Chen Gu, Hao-Xiang Xu, Jun-Yu Ma, Pan Lu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Kai-Wei Chang, Nanyun Peng, Yunzhi Yao, Peng Wang, Bozhong Tian, Siyuan Cheng, Zhoubo Li, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Zekun Xi, Shengyu Mao, Jintian Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Ziwen Xu, Xin Xu, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Lei Liang, Zhiqiang Zhang, Xiaowei Zhu, Jun Zhou, among others .

The key to the solution mentioned in the paper to prevent model collapse during model editing involves uniformly using prefixed keys during the editing phase and adding random text prefixes during the testing phase. This approach ensures consistency in the key vectors used and helps maintain the effectiveness of the edits, thereby preventing model collapse .


How were the experiments in the paper designed?

The experiments in the paper were designed to thoroughly investigate the underlying causes of LLM's collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME. The experiments aimed to identify the reasons for ROME's collapse, which arise from irregularities in the official implementation of ROME and anomalous distribution of the first token in GPT-like models . The study conducted extensive experiments to validate the effectiveness of a straightforward method proposed to address the model collapse issue of ROME . Additionally, the experiments focused on investigating the differences in the parameter update process of ROME between collapse cases and normal cases to uncover the root causes of model collapse . The paper also acknowledged limitations, such as focusing primarily on GPT-2-XL and GPT-J models and leaving an in-depth investigation into the anomalous representation distribution of the first token in autoregressive models for future research .


What is the dataset used for quantitative evaluation? Is the code open source?

The dataset used for quantitative evaluation in the study is the ME-PPL50 dataset, which was validated for its effectiveness by Yang et al. . The code used in the study will be released after the review process ends .


Do the experiments and results in the paper provide good support for the scientific hypotheses that need to be verified? Please analyze.

The experiments and results presented in the paper provide strong support for the scientific hypotheses that needed verification. The study thoroughly investigates the root causes of model collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME in large language models (LLMs) . The analysis identifies two primary factors contributing to the collapse: inconsistent handling of prefixed and unprefixed keys in the parameter update equation and the unique distribution of the first token's key in autoregressive transformers . The experiments conducted in the paper validate these findings and propose a straightforward solution to prevent model collapse while maintaining editing effectiveness . The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed solution in addressing the model collapse issue of ROME .


What are the contributions of this paper?

The contributions of the paper "The Fall of ROME: Understanding the Collapse of LLMs in Model Editing" include:

  • Thorough investigation into the underlying causes of Large Language Models (LLMs) collapse triggered by a single edit of ROME, highlighting irregularities in the official implementation of ROME and anomalous distribution of the first token in GPT-like models .
  • Proposal of a straightforward method to address the model collapse issue of ROME and validation of its effectiveness through experiments .
  • Acknowledgment of limitations such as focusing primarily on GPT-2-XL and GPT-J, successful prevention of collapse in Llama2-7b, and leaving in-depth investigation into the anomalous representation distribution of the first token in autoregressive models for future research .
  • Intention to investigate the root causes of model collapse in sequential editing and devise more robust editing methods for superior performance across various scenarios in future research .

What work can be continued in depth?

Further research can delve deeper into several aspects related to model collapse in sequential editing:

  • Investigating the anomalous representation distribution of the first token in autoregressive models for a more in-depth analysis .
  • Exploring the root causes of model collapse triggered by the cumulative effects of sequential editing, which is a phenomenon observed in existing works but was not the primary focus of the current research .
  • Conducting a detailed examination of the characteristics and patterns of collapse cases in different large language models to understand the specific factors contributing to model collapse .
  • Addressing the irregularities in the implementation of keys in the parameter update equation that lead to excessively large parameter updates and model collapse, as identified in the study .
  • Investigating the differences in the parameter update process between collapse cases and normal cases to gain insights into the specific mechanisms that result in model collapse .
Tables
3
Scan the QR code to ask more questions about the paper
© 2025 Powerdrill. All rights reserved.