Inside-Out: Hidden Factual Knowledge in LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This work presents a framework for assessing whether large language models (LLMs) encode more factual knowledge in their parameters than what they express in their outputs. While a few studies hint at this possibility, none has clearly defined or demonstrated this phenomenon. We first propose a formal definition of knowledge, quantifying it for a given question as the fraction of correct-incorrect answer pairs where the correct one is ranked higher. This gives rise to external and internal knowledge, depending on the information used to score individual answer candidates: either the model's observable token-level probabilities or its intermediate computations. Hidden knowledge arises when internal knowledge exceeds external knowledge. We then present a case study, applying this framework to three popular open-weights LLMs in a closed-book QA setup. Our results indicate that: (1) LLMs consistently encode more factual knowledge internally than what they express externally, with an average relative gap of 40%. (2) Surprisingly, some knowledge is so deeply hidden that a model can internally know an answer perfectly, yet fail to generate it even once, despite large-scale repeated sampling of 1,000 answers. This reveals fundamental limitations in the generation capabilities of LLMs, which (3) put a practical constraint on scaling test-time compute via repeated answer sampling in closed-book QA: significant performance improvements remain inaccessible because some answers are practically never sampled, yet if they were, we would be guaranteed to rank them first.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 5.
7 papers.
- 2025Temporal Predictors of Outcome in Reasoning Language Modelscited by 6
- 2026Efficient Reasoning with Balanced Thinkingcited by 4
- 2026Higher-Order Knowledge Representations for Agentic Scientific Reasoningcited by 3
- 2025Input-Time Scaling: Adding Noise and Irrelevance into Less-Is-More Drastically Improves Reasoning Performance and Efficiencycited by 0
- 2026Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillationcited by 0
- 2026Calibration, Not Answer Selection: Distilling Internal Confidence in Reasoning Modelscited by 0
- 2026Structured but Silent: Probing Capability Requirements in LLM Hidden Statescited by 0
- 2026Structured but Silent: Probing Capability Requirements in LLM Hidden States6 Oct 2026
- 2026Calibration, Not Answer Selection: Distilling Internal Confidence in Reasoning Models27 Sep 2026
- 2026Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillation21 Aug 2026
- 2026Efficient Reasoning with Balanced Thinking12 Mar 2026
- 2026Higher-Order Knowledge Representations for Agentic Scientific Reasoning8 Jan 2026
- 2025Temporal Predictors of Outcome in Reasoning Language Models3 Nov 2025
- 2025Input-Time Scaling: Adding Noise and Irrelevance into Less-Is-More Drastically Improves Reasoning Performance and Efficiency19 Aug 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Improving Factuality in LLMs via Inference-Time Knowledge Graph Construction
- 2023Knowledge of Knowledge: Exploring Known-Unknowns Uncertainty with Large Language Models
- 2026Same Question, Different Answers: Evaluating LLM Reliability Beyond Accuracy
- 2024How Reliable are LLMs as Knowledge Bases? Re-thinking Facutality and Consistency
- 2024Confidence in the Reasoning of Large Language Models
- 2026Beyond Questions: Evaluating the Stated Knowledge of LLMs
- 2025No Answer Needed: Predicting LLM Answer Accuracy from Question-Only Linear Probes
- 2024Large Language Models Can Better Understand Knowledge Graphs Than We Thought