arxiv-2606-01610 SRC-0359 · paper

Revisiting Ripple Effects in Knowledge Editing through Pressure-Aware Joint Neighborhood Optimization

Created: 2026-06-01 · Ingested: 2026-09-19

Single-edit updates in large language models can trigger ripple effects across local knowledge neighborhoods: desirable propagation to related facts and unintended perturbation of preserved ones. Existing methods address these two effects separately, without explicitly modeling their coupling. We challenge this separation through an analysis of ripple responses across typical baselines, identifying two coupled design pressures: editable-side coordination and preserved-side leakage. We propose Joint Neighborhood Optimization (JNO), a new knowledge-editing framework to formalize and jointly addr

In brief

Planning edit targets for a whole knowledge neighborhood at once, instead of handling propagation and preservation separately, improves both at the same time. Locate-then-edit methods leak badly: across ROME, MEMIT, PMET, AlphaEdit and GLAME on RippleEdits with GPT-J, average Positive Ripple Rate is 62.53% while average Negative Ripple Rate reaches 64.74%, so neither propagation nor preservation is reliable.

JNO builds editable and preserved neighbor sets per edit, jointly optimizes target representations with a pairwise coordination penalty and an exposure-weighted residual penalty, then abstains on plans failing a semantic-loss gate. Tested on RippleEdits (839 requests), CounterFact and ZsRE (2,000 each) with Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct, GPT-J (6B) and LLaMA3 (8B), against 9 baselines including SAKE and SUIT.

On LLaMA3, RE rises 18.1% and SA 7.0% over the best baseline; on GPT-J, RS 16.7% and FF 30.9%. Reliability drops about 3.0% relative, staying at or above 95.9%. CounterFact and ZsRE gains are smaller: Specificity up 2.6%-8.6%, Efficacy down at most 1.5%.

Evidence is reasonable. Ablations separate the two penalties (removing the residual term costs 16.3/19.2 points of RS/FF; removing the pairwise term costs 10.9/10.8/10.6 on LG/RE/SA), and a coverage-matched comparison at 96.3% shows gains are not from rejection. All baselines share the same constructed neighborhoods, which an audit finds 89.7% valid.

The structural analysis is correlational, not interventional, and neighborhoods come from rule-guided mining, so coverage may not transfer to multi-hop or context-dependent edits. If you edit facts in place, treat target planning, not the weight update, as the lever.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-10-24, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsA single fact edit exerts two coupled pressures on its knowledge neighbourhood, propagation to facts that should change and leakage into facts that should not, and planning the edit's target representations jointly under both constraints, with a gate that rejects risky plans before touching parameters, improved propagation and preservation on RippleEdits by at least 7% across backbones over methods that treat the two separately.