arXiv (All)
open access
Sequential knowledge editing breaks a model's ability to tell good evidence from bad, without costing it accuracy
Knowledge editing is evaluated on whether the edited fact changed, whether paraphrases follow, and whether unrelated answers stayed put. A model can pass all three and still lose something none of them measures: the ability to decide, on facts that were never edited, which retrieved documents to bel
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Spine of American Law: Digital Text Analysis and U.S. Legal Practice (annotated version)#1178306
- A Missing Piece for Trustworthy AI Reviewers: From Benchmarking Rhetorical Robustness to SciCore Review#1143994
- More Than Mimicking Reviewers: Evaluating LLMs for Pre-Submission Peer Review#973418
- Mem++: Non-Destructive Memory for Long-Term Organizational LLM Agents#1161083
- Mem++: Non-Destructive Memory for Long-Term Organizational LLM Agents#1157350
Record · ID 1077515
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive