Knowledge editing aims at updating knowledge of large language models (LLMs) to prevent them from becoming outdated. Existing work edits LLMs at the level of factual knowledge triplets. However, natural knowledge updates in the real world come from the occurrences of new events rather than direct changes in factual triplets. In this paper, we propose a new task setting: event-level knowledge editing, which directly edits new events into LLMs and improves over conventional triplet-level editing on (1) Efficiency. A single event edit leads to updates in multiple entailed knowledge triplets. (2) Completeness. Beyond updating factual knowledge, event-level editing also requires considering the event influences and updating LLMs' knowledge about future trends. We construct a high-quality event-level editing benchmark ELKEN, consisting of 1,515 event edits, 6,449 questions about factual knowledge, and 10,150 questions about future tendencies. We systematically evaluate the performance of various knowledge editing methods and LLMs on this benchmark. We find that ELKEN poses significant challenges to existing knowledge editing approaches. Our codes and dataset are publicly released to facilitate further research.
Understanding events in texts is a core objective of natural language understanding, which requires detecting event occurrences, extracting event arguments, and analyzing inter-event relationships. However, due to the annotation challenges brought by task complexity, a large-scale dataset covering the full process of event understanding has long been absent. In this paper, we introduce MAVEN-Arg, which augments MAVEN datasets with event argument annotations, making the first all-in-one dataset supporting event detection, event argument extraction (EAE), and event relation extraction. As an EAE benchmark, MAVEN-Arg offers three main advantages: (1) a comprehensive schema covering 162 event types and 612 argument roles, all with expert-written definitions and examples; (2) a large data scale, containing 98,591 events and 290,613 arguments obtained with laborious human annotation; (3) the exhaustive annotation supporting all task variants of EAE, which annotates both entity and non-entity event arguments in document level. Experiments indicate that MAVEN-Arg is quite challenging for both fine-tuned EAE models and proprietary large language models (LLMs). Furthermore, to demonstrate the benefits of an all-in-one dataset, we preliminarily explore a potential application, future event prediction, with LLMs. MAVEN-Arg and our code can be obtained from https://github.com/THU-KEG/MAVEN-Argument.
In-context learning (ICL) has become the default method for using large language models (LLMs), making the exploration of its limitations and understanding the underlying causes crucial. In this paper, we find that ICL falls short of handling specification-heavy tasks, which are tasks with complicated and extensive task specifications, requiring several hours for ordinary humans to master, such as traditional information extraction tasks. The performance of ICL on these tasks mostly cannot reach half of the state-of-the-art results. To explore the reasons behind this failure, we conduct comprehensive experiments on 18 specification-heavy tasks with various LLMs and identify three primary reasons: inability to specifically understand context, misalignment in task schema comprehension with humans, and inadequate long-text understanding ability. Furthermore, we demonstrate that through fine-tuning, LLMs can achieve decent performance on these tasks, indicating that the failure of ICL is not an inherent flaw of LLMs, but rather a drawback of existing alignment methods that renders LLMs incapable of handling complicated specification-heavy tasks via ICL. To substantiate this, we perform dedicated instruction tuning on LLMs for these tasks and observe a notable improvement. We hope the analyses in this paper could facilitate advancements in alignment methods enabling LLMs to meet more sophisticated human demands.
Open Information Extraction (OIE) aims to extract objective structured knowledge from natural texts, which has attracted growing attention to build dedicated models with human experience. As the large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable in-context learning capabilities, a question arises as to whether the task of OIE can be effectively tackled with this paradigm? In this paper, we explore solving the OIE problem by constructing an appropriate reasoning environment for LLMs. Specifically, we first propose a method to effectively estimate the discrepancy of syntactic distribution between a LLM and test samples, which can serve as correlation evidence for preparing positive demonstrations. Upon the evidence, we introduce a simple yet effective mechanism to establish the reasoning environment for LLMs on specific tasks. Without bells and whistles, experimental results on the standard CaRB benchmark demonstrate that our $6$-shot approach outperforms state-of-the-art supervised method, achieving an $55.3$ $F_1$ score. Further experiments on TACRED and ACE05 show that our method can naturally generalize to other information extraction tasks, resulting in improvements of $5.7$ and $6.8$ $F_1$ scores, respectively.
Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection is essential for reliable and trustworthy machine learning. Recent multi-modal OOD detection leverages textual information from in-distribution (ID) class names for visual OOD detection, yet it currently neglects the rich contextual information of ID classes. Large language models (LLMs) encode a wealth of world knowledge and can be prompted to generate descriptive features for each class. Indiscriminately using such knowledge causes catastrophic damage to OOD detection due to LLMs' hallucinations, as is observed by our analysis. In this paper, we propose to apply world knowledge to enhance OOD detection performance through selective generation from LLMs. Specifically, we introduce a consistency-based uncertainty calibration method to estimate the confidence score of each generation. We further extract visual objects from each image to fully capitalize on the aforementioned world knowledge. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art.
Event understanding aims at understanding the content and relationship of events within texts, which covers multiple complicated information extraction tasks: event detection, event argument extraction, and event relation extraction. To facilitate related research and application, we present an event understanding toolkit OmniEvent, which features three desiderata: (1) Comprehensive. OmniEvent supports mainstream modeling paradigms of all the event understanding tasks and the processing of 15 widely-used English and Chinese datasets. (2) Fair. OmniEvent carefully handles the inconspicuous evaluation pitfalls reported in Peng et al. (2023), which ensures fair comparisons between different models. (3) Easy-to-use. OmniEvent is designed to be easily used by users with varying needs. We provide off-the-shelf models that can be directly deployed as web services. The modular framework also enables users to easily implement and evaluate new event understanding models with OmniEvent. The toolkit (https://github.com/THU-KEG/OmniEvent) is publicly released along with the demonstration website and video (https://omnievent.xlore.cn/).
The unprecedented performance of large language models (LLMs) necessitates improvements in evaluations. Rather than merely exploring the breadth of LLM abilities, we believe meticulous and thoughtful designs are essential to thorough, unbiased, and applicable evaluations. Given the importance of world knowledge to LLMs, we construct a Knowledge-oriented LLM Assessment benchmark (KoLA), in which we carefully design three crucial factors: (1) For ability modeling, we mimic human cognition to form a four-level taxonomy of knowledge-related abilities, covering $19$ tasks. (2) For data, to ensure fair comparisons, we use both Wikipedia, a corpus prevalently pre-trained by LLMs, along with continuously collected emerging corpora, aiming to evaluate the capacity to handle unseen data and evolving knowledge. (3) For evaluation criteria, we adopt a contrastive system, including overall standard scores for better numerical comparability across tasks and models and a unique self-contrast metric for automatically evaluating knowledge hallucination. We evaluate $21$ open-source and commercial LLMs and obtain some intriguing findings. The KoLA dataset and open-participation leaderboard are publicly released at https://kola.xlore.cn and will be continuously updated to provide references for developing LLMs and knowledge-related systems.
Event extraction (EE) is a crucial task aiming at extracting events from texts, which includes two subtasks: event detection (ED) and event argument extraction (EAE). In this paper, we check the reliability of EE evaluations and identify three major pitfalls: (1) The data preprocessing discrepancy makes the evaluation results on the same dataset not directly comparable, but the data preprocessing details are not widely noted and specified in papers. (2) The output space discrepancy of different model paradigms makes different-paradigm EE models lack grounds for comparison and also leads to unclear mapping issues between predictions and annotations. (3) The absence of pipeline evaluation of many EAE-only works makes them hard to be directly compared with EE works and may not well reflect the model performance in real-world pipeline scenarios. We demonstrate the significant influence of these pitfalls through comprehensive meta-analyses of recent papers and empirical experiments. To avoid these pitfalls, we suggest a series of remedies, including specifying data preprocessing, standardizing outputs, and providing pipeline evaluation results. To help implement these remedies, we develop a consistent evaluation framework OMNIEVENT, which can be obtained from https://github.com/THU-KEG/OmniEvent.
Numerous benchmarks have been established to assess the performance of foundation models on open-ended question answering, which serves as a comprehensive test of a model's ability to understand and generate language in a manner similar to humans. Most of these works focus on proposing new datasets, however, we see two main issues within previous benchmarking pipelines, namely testing leakage and evaluation automation. In this paper, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, Language-Model-as-an-Examiner, where the LM serves as a knowledgeable examiner that formulates questions based on its knowledge and evaluates responses in a reference-free manner. Our framework allows for effortless extensibility as various LMs can be adopted as the examiner, and the questions can be constantly updated given more diverse trigger topics. For a more comprehensive and equitable evaluation, we devise three strategies: (1) We instruct the LM examiner to generate questions across a multitude of domains to probe for a broad acquisition, and raise follow-up questions to engage in a more in-depth assessment. (2) Upon evaluation, the examiner combines both scoring and ranking measurements, providing a reliable result as it aligns closely with human annotations. (3) We additionally propose a decentralized Peer-examination method to address the biases in a single examiner. Our data and benchmarking results are available at: https://lmexam.com.
The robustness to distribution changes ensures that NLP models can be successfully applied in the realistic world, especially for information extraction tasks. However, most prior evaluation benchmarks have been devoted to validating pairwise matching correctness, ignoring the crucial measurement of robustness. In this paper, we present the first benchmark that simulates the evaluation of open information extraction models in the real world, where the syntactic and expressive distributions under the same knowledge meaning may drift variously. We design and annotate a large-scale testbed in which each example is a knowledge-invariant clique that consists of sentences with structured knowledge of the same meaning but with different syntactic and expressive forms. By further elaborating the robustness metric, a model is judged to be robust if its performance is consistently accurate on the overall cliques. We perform experiments on typical models published in the last decade as well as a popular large language model, the results show that the existing successful models exhibit a frustrating degradation, with a maximum drop of 23.43 F1 score. Our resources and code will be publicly available.