RuleEdit: Failure-Guided Human-AI Model Editing with Prospective Impact Preview

Human-AI interactions are becoming a rich source of data for improving AI systems: while many model responses are already satisfactory, others expose failures that could become valuable supervision if identified and corrected. We study this setting through the notion of an editor: a more capable evaluation process that can inspect a response and either confirm it or modify it, but whose invocation is costly. The editor may be a human expert, a stronger AI system, or the same model equipped with additional computation, context, tools, or information. The key challenge is to decide which interactions to send to the editor before knowing whether an edit will actually be made, since invoking the editor itself consumes limited resources such as expert time, inference cost, latency, or tool-use overhead. We formulate this problem as Edit Discovery Optimization (EDO), which seeks to minimize edit opportunities missed among skipped interactions while controlling unnecessary confirmations and respecting an editor-cost budget. We characterize the population-optimal policy and show that it takes the form of a cost-adjusted threshold on the posterior probability of an edit. Building on this structure, we develop EDIT (Edit Discovery via Iterative Thresholding), an online algorithm for the partial-feedback setting in which edit labels are revealed only for selected interactions. EDIT combines an adaptive edit score, a confirmation-control threshold, and a cost-aware selection rule; it satisfies the editor budget at every round and controls the average confirmation rate up to a vanishing finite-horizon term, without distributional assumptions on the interaction stream. Across four reasoning and factual question-answering benchmarks, EDIT achieves a better trade-off between editor cost, Type-I error, and Type-II error than direct LLM-based batch selection.

Large language models can produce confident but protocol-invalid answers in domains where procedural compliance is critical. This paper presents Answer Engineering, a deterministic runtime and authoring layer that applies localized rule-guided interventions to the visible reasoning trajectory during standard autoregressive generation, without retraining, modifying model weights, or performing global search. The method is evaluated on a controlled clinical benchmark for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), where correct management depends on protocol-consistent interpretation of symptom timing, Weber/Rinne tuning-fork findings, and otoscopic findings. In the benchmark, step-by-step reasoning shifted rather than eliminated errors: compliant outcomes for SSNHL decreased from 54.5% under unguided generation to 25.1%, while acceptance on the conductive contrast condition increased from 1.6% to 58.9%. Local trajectory editing increased SSNHL compliance to 83.5% and conductive-case adherence to 77.9%, raising balanced accuracy from 42.0% under reasoning-only generation to 80.7%. The results support a systems-level view in which protocol adherence can be improved through auditable runtime control of reasoning trajectories, while also identifying limitations caused by rule coverage, trigger reliability, and persistent diagnosis-first generation dynamics.

A central desideratum in model editing is generalization to complex tasks, which prior work formalizes under a direct generalization paradigm: treating and evaluating LLM behavior as an input-output mapping and expecting a factual update to alter outputs on reasoning tasks. Yet despite substantial empirical effort, the field consensus remains that such generalization is highly challenging and elusive. However, when we deploy the latest models in an in-the-wild chatbot-user setting, we surprisingly find that even classical editing methods exhibit remarkably fluent generalization behavior. This motivates us to revisit the obstacles to generalization and the limitations of the prevailing paradigm. We find that direct generalization is fundamentally constrained both theoretically and practically: theoretically, it suffers from an identifiability issue; and practically, existing approaches attempting to circumvent this are further hindered by the ambiguity of their constructed biases and by vulnerability to being overridden by other factors such as optimization dynamics. We instead identify compositional generalization, empowered by the increasingly strong reasoning and composition abilities of modern LLMs, as a theoretically grounded and empirically validated alternative. We validate this phenomenon across multiple models and editing methods, showing that such generalization behavior is widespread. Overall, we argue that generalizable model editing could be more than direct generalization, and call for a paradigm shift toward more generalizable and practically deployable knowledge update techniques.