Memory Augmentation and Editing Techniques in LLMs
Summary
Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with outdated information and a lack of specialized, domain-specific knowledge. To address these limitations, researchers have developed techniques in memory augmentation [1, 2] and model editing [3] aimed at enhancing the performance and accuracy of LLMs. This blog post will explore these critical areas of research, examining their methodologies, underlying motivations, and practical implications.
Why Not Just Fine-Tune the Model Directly?
Before exploring memory augmentation and model editing, it is important to understand why directly fine-tuning a language model or relying solely on prompts is often not the best solution.
1. Inefficient Use of Model Capacity
Embedding specific factual knowledge directly into a model’s parameters is not an efficient use of its capacity. Research indicates that model parameters are better suited for encoding generalized capabilities—such as reasoning, language fluency, and task adaptability—rather than storing isolated facts [4]. In contrast, approaches like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) are designed to efficiently handle detailed, fact-specific information [5].
2. Risk of Conflicting Updates
Directly updating a model’s weights to inject new knowledge can lead to conflicts. Such updates might degrade the model's performance on tasks requiring distinct knowledge or instruction-handling capabilities [6]. This makes direct fine-tuning a risky approach for maintaining overall model robustness.
3. Limitations of Prompt-Only Solutions
While prompts are a convenient way to introduce external knowledge, they come with their own limitations. LLMs often struggle to generalize beyond their pretraining context, which can result in lower-quality responses and an increased risk of generating hallucinations [7]. Additionally, packing too much information into prompts can be computationally inefficient and may distract the model from focusing on the most relevant knowledge [8].
By addressing these challenges, memory augmentation and model editing offer more efficient and reliable alternatives for incorporating new knowledge into language models.
Memory Editing vs. Memory Augmentation
Understanding the distinction between Memory Editing (ME) and Memory Augmentation (MA) is crucial when exploring advancements in large language models.
Memory Editing involves modifying a model's internal knowledge to correct inaccuracies or incorporate up-to-date information. For instance, a language model trained before 2022 might incorrectly claim that Lionel Messi has never won the FIFA World Cup. Memory editing allows such outdated information to be updated, ensuring the model remains accurate and relevant.
Memory Augmentation, often referred to as knowledge injection, equips the model with external, specialized knowledge to address queries beyond its general training. For example, a customer service chatbot might be augmented with a company-specific knowledge base to provide precise and tailored responses to customer inquiries.
Evaluating Memory Augmentation and Editing Techniques
Memory augmentation in LLMs aims to enhance their ability to incorporate external knowledge effectively while preserving generalization and efficiency. To assess the performance of memory-augmented LLMs (referred to as LLMe), we can use four key criteria:
Reliability: The model should consistently produce accurate outputs based on the newly introduced knowledge. Any edits or knowledge updates must align with the intended changes without introducing errors.
Generalization: The augmented model should be able to apply the newly added knowledge to a broader range of related queries, showcasing its ability to generalize beyond the exact scenarios it was trained or edited for.
Locality: Edits or knowledge injections should be localized to the specific areas of the model relevant to the changes. This ensures that the model's performance on unrelated queries remains stable and unaffected by the modifications.
Efficiency: The process of editing or augmenting the model’s knowledge must be computationally efficient, avoiding significant slowdowns or excessive use of resources while maintaining overall performance quality.
By focusing on these dimensions, we can develop and refine techniques that make LLMs both smarter and more reliable in handling dynamic knowledge updates.
Memory Formats in Language Models
When exploring memory augmentation and editing techniques, tasks can generally be divided into two categories: Model Editing (ME) and Memory Augmentation. These tasks rely on two primary types of memory formats in language models: parametric and non-parametric memory.
Parametric Memory
Parametric memory refers to knowledge that is embedded directly into a model’s weights. This is achieved through methods like gradient-based training or advanced architectures such as hypernetworks [9]. Common approaches under this format include techniques like sequential fine-tuning, which iteratively updates the model’s weights, and targeted parameter editing, which adjusts specific parts of the model to incorporate new knowledge.
Non-Parametric Memory
In contrast, non-parametric memory stores knowledge externally as either plain text or Key-Value (KV) pairs. These external representations are accessed dynamically during the model's forward pass, allowing the model to leverage relevant information without modifying its internal weights. This format is particularly useful for scenarios requiring frequent updates or retrieval of specific information.
By understanding these memory formats, we can better design systems that balance flexibility, efficiency, and scalability in memory augmentation and editing tasks.
Applications of Memory Augmentation and Editing in Large Language Models
Memory augmentation and model editing techniques in LLMs can be broadly categorized into parametric and non-parametric methods. These methods are applied to either edit the model’s behavior or enhance its memory capacity.
Model Editing Techniques
Parametric Memory
Sequential Fine-Tuning: This involves updating the model’s parameters through additional training on new data, enabling it to incorporate updated information or correct specific outputs.
Targeted Parameter Editing: Focuses on modifying only a small subset of the model's parameters to implement specific changes without retraining the entire model.
Non-Parametric Memory
In-Context Learning: This technique allows the model to adapt its responses by leveraging real-time input data as contextual information, without altering its internal parameters.
Memory Augmentation Techniques
Parametric Memory
Continual Pretraining: Extends the model's training with new data to refresh or expand its knowledge while maintaining previously learned information.
Parameterized Hidden Vectors: Uses specific parameter configurations within the model’s architecture to store and recall information more effectively.
Non-Parametric Memory
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Combines the model’s capabilities with an external knowledge base, retrieving relevant information to generate responses dynamically.
Key-Value (KV) Vector Storage: Stores information in an external, structured format, allowing the model to reference and utilize it without requiring internal parameter changes.
These approaches provide a flexible toolkit for tailoring LLMs to diverse applications, such as updating knowledge bases, refining outputs, and improving response accuracy.
Model Editing Techniques
Editing Original Parameters
Let's begin by discussing model editing techniques that involve modifying the original parameters. In this context, we will exclude Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) from consideration, as it has been shown to be less effective compared to other approaches. SFT often leads to overfitting and is prone to catastrophic forgetting, where the model loses previously learned information when new data is introduced [5].
One strategy for parameter editing involves directly modifying the model’s weights. A notable approach uses meta-learning, which allows the model to adapt its weights to incorporate desired changes. For instance, MEND (Model Editor Networks with Gradient Decomposition) [13] introduces an innovative solution by employing a specialized editor network (a type of hypernetwork) for each layer of the model, primarily focusing on the final layers. This editor network processes gradients and converts them into efficient, localized updates to the model’s parameters. To achieve this with minimal computational cost, MEND shares parameters across layers but adapts them based on the structure of the specific weight matrices. Additionally, it enhances precision by applying layer-specific scaling and offset adjustments to the editor weights, ensuring that updates are tailored to each layer’s unique requirements.
MEND primarily focuses on modifying Feed Forward Layers, as these layers have been experimentally shown to play a more crucial role in storing knowledge compared to attention layers. Furthermore, the gradients of feed forward layers can be expressed as a rank-1 outer product, which significantly reduces the computational cost of the updates. Unlike traditional fine-tuning approaches, MEND introduces a unique training approach by modifying the loss function. In addition to the standard cross-entropy loss, which ensures the accuracy of the edits, MEND incorporates a KL divergence term. This additional term helps preserve the consistency of output distributions for data samples unrelated to the edits, maintaining the model’s overall behavior.
Rather than relying on meta-modeling to determine which final layers to edit, methods like ROME (Rank-One Model Editing) [14] adopt a more targeted approach by identifying specific weights responsible for the output requiring modification. This identification process relies on a technique called causal tracing, which helps pinpoint the flow of information within the model. By systematically introducing controlled corruptions and observing their effects across multiple runs, causal tracing isolates the impact of individual states, effectively mapping how information propagates through the network.
To edit specific facts in a model, ROME conceptualizes the MLP module as a key-value storage system, where the ‘‘key’’ represents a subject and the ‘‘value’’ encodes the associated knowledge. ROME updates the MLP weights using a rank-one update, a structured technique that inserts new key-value pairs into the model. This update is derived from solving a constrained least-squares optimization problem, which ensures the selection of appropriate keys and values while maintaining the precision and localization of the edits.
Enhancing Model Editing Through Additional Parameters
Let’s explore model editing techniques that involve augmenting the model with new parameters instead of modifying the original ones directly. These methods aim to expand the model's capabilities by adding supplementary components that address specific shortcomings.
One such approach is the Transformer Patcher [15], which tackles issues like misclassification or incorrect token generation. Instead of modifying the original model, this technique freezes its parameters and introduces a new ‘‘patch’’ – essentially, an added neuron – in the final feed-forward network (FFN) layer. This patch is specifically trained to activate only when the associated error occurs.
For classification tasks, a single patch is typically sufficient to handle a mistake. In contrast, for auto-regressive text generation tasks, a unique patch is created for each erroneous token. This ensures targeted corrections without disrupting the original model’s structure or overall behavior.
Another approach, known as MELO [16], focuses on encoding knowledge into the parametric weights of the model, specifically using LoRA weights. To overcome the limitations of how much information LoRA can efficiently encode, MELO increases the rank of these weights and incorporates edits into the additional dimensions. This process is supported by a RAG system, which stores embedding vectors as keys and indexes them along the expanded LoRA dimensions for each edit.
A key challenge with this method lies in managing the density of knowledge. If only a few edits are made across the model, the knowledge density remains low, which increases the risk of overfitting. On the other hand, packing too much knowledge into a limited parameter space raises the density, which can result in catastrophic forgetting—where previously learned information is lost.
To address these challenges, MELO employs a strategy called knowledge sharding. In this method, side memories are distributed across distinct, orthogonal parameter subspaces, each defined by a unique random mask. To reconcile potential conflicts while preserving the diversity of knowledge, the Ties-Merge technique is applied, ensuring that the edited knowledge remains stable and robust.
Memory Augmentation Techniques
Memory Augmentation (MA) techniques aim to enhance a model’s ability to store and retrieve new information without modifying its original parameters. These methods introduce additional components to the model, such as external memory structures, to integrate new knowledge flexibly.
An example of this approach is MEMORY LLM [17], which extends a standard transformer architecture by embedding a fixed-size memory pool into each layer of the model. This memory pool is composed of specialized memory tokens, designed to store compressed representations of knowledge. These tokens function as an external repository, enabling the model to efficiently access and use the stored information during both text generation and self-updating processes. This design ensures that the model can adapt to new information while preserving its core capabilities.
Memory Pool Structure
Fixed-Size Memory Pool: The memory system in MEMORY LLM is carefully designed to remain within a fixed size. This ensures that the memory pool does not grow uncontrollably, allowing for efficient operation and scalability.
Memory Tokens: Each transformer layer is equipped with its own set of memory tokens. These tokens are continuously updated through a self-update mechanism. This process allows the model to integrate new information while preserving important knowledge it has already learned.
Generation Process
In the generation phase, the model's hidden states interact with the entire set of memory tokens from the memory pool. This interaction is managed through the attention mechanism, which allows each input token to access and draw information from all memory tokens. Despite the comprehensive access, this process is designed to maintain linear computational complexity relative to the memory pool size, ensuring efficiency.
Self-Update Mechanism
The self-update mechanism enables the model to incorporate new information while gradually replacing outdated knowledge. This process ensures a smooth integration of new inputs with existing memory, allowing the model to remain accurate and reliable without losing its overall consistency.
Non-Parametric Knowledge Injection
Unlike parametric methods, which rely on directly adjusting model parameters, non-parametric knowledge injection (KI) focuses on external mechanisms to enhance a model’s knowledge. Two common approaches are Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [12] and the use of key-value (KV) vectors.
RAG integrates text-based retrieval systems that fetch relevant information from external sources based on a similarity measure, such as the dot product. Similarly, KV vectors organize information into pairs for efficient storage and retrieval, enabling the model to access specific knowledge on demand during inference. These techniques allow LLMs to dynamically incorporate relevant knowledge without permanently altering their internal representations.
Conclusion
In summary, we explored the landscape of memory augmentation and editing techniques in large language models, focusing on their strengths and limitations in enhancing knowledge retention and model performance. Techniques like MEND and ROME enable precise adjustments to model weights, mitigating catastrophic forgetting. However, these approaches can introduce challenges, such as handling dense or conflicting information in the edited knowledge. Parametric methods, such as Transformer Patcher and MELO, expand model capabilities by integrating new knowledge without altering the original parameters. While offering flexibility, they often face issues like maintaining coherence and resolving conflicts, which can limit their scalability. On the other hand, non-parametric methods, such as MEMORY LLM, rely on memory tokens to retrieve and integrate information dynamically. Although effective in certain contexts, they risk overwhelming the system with excessive information and present challenges in managing memory efficiently.
While substantial progress has been made in advancing memory augmentation and editing techniques for LLMs, several critical limitations remain. Addressing these challenges will be crucial for building more robust and adaptable models that can effectively navigate complex knowledge-intensive tasks across a wide range of applications.
Reference
[1] Peng Fu, Yiming Zhang, Haobo Wang, Weikang Qiu, & Junbo Zhao. (2023). Revisiting the Knowledge Injection Frameworks.
[2] Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, & Ji-Rong Wen. (2024). A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model based Agents.
[3] Song Wang, Yaochen Zhu, Haochen Liu, Zaiyi Zheng, Chen Chen, & Jundong Li. (2024). Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models: A Survey.
[4] Hongkang Yang, Zehao Lin, Wenjin Wang, Hao Wu, Zhiyu Li, Bo Tang, Wenqiang Wei, Jinbo Wang, Zeyun Tang, Shichao Song, Chenyang Xi, Yu Yu, Kai Chen, Feiyu Xiong, Linpeng Tang, & Weinan E. (2024). Memory^3: Language Modeling with Explicit Memory.
[5] Oded Ovadia, Menachem Brief, Moshik Mishaeli, & Oren Elisha. (2024). Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs.
[6] Yun Luo, Zhen Yang, Fandong Meng, Yafu Li, Jie Zhou, & Yue Zhang. (2024). An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuning.
[7] Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., & Liu, T. (2024). A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems.
[8] Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, & Percy Liang. (2023). Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts.
[9] Chauhan, V., Zhou, J., Lu, P., Molaei, S., & Clifton, D. (2024). A brief review of hypernetworks in deep learning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(9).
[10] Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Lei Li, & Zhifang Sui. (2024). A Survey on In-context Learning.
[11] Kshitij Gupta, Benjamin Thérien, Adam Ibrahim, Mats L. Richter, Quentin Anthony, Eugene Belilovsky, Irina Rish, & Timothée Lesort. (2023). Continual Pre-Training of Large Language Models: How to (re)warm your model?.
[12] Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, & Haofen Wang. (2024). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey.
[13] Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, & Christopher D. Manning. (2022). Fast Model Editing at Scale.
[14] Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, & Yonatan Belinkov. (2023). Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT.
[15] Zeyu Huang, Yikang Shen, Xiaofeng Zhang, Jie Zhou, Wenge Rong, & Zhang Xiong. (2023). Transformer-Patcher: One Mistake worth One Neuron.
[16] Lang Yu, Qin Chen, Jie Zhou, & Liang He. (2023). MELO: Enhancing Model Editing with Neuron-Indexed Dynamic LoRA.
[17] Yu Wang, Yifan Gao, Xiusi Chen, Haoming Jiang, Shiyang Li, Jingfeng Yang, Qingyu Yin, Zheng Li, Xian Li, Bing Yin, Jingbo Shang, & Julian McAuley. (2024). MEMORYLLM: Towards Self-Updatable Large Language Models.
