Understanding Fact Recall in Language Models: Why Two-Stage Training Encourages Memorization but Mixed Training Teaches Knowledge
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While fine-tuning is the standard for injecting factual knowledge into large language models (LLMs), the mechanisms enabling reliable fact recall via unseen queries remain poorly understood. Common two-stage training strategies, which sequentially train on fact storage and query formats, often cause rote memorization. In contrast, mixed training jointly optimizes both formats and exhibits superior generalized recall. We investigate this success by comparing the two paradigms across 2.8~4B LLMs and identify the core mechanism: the joint optimization objective in mixed training induces gradient consistency across storage and query formats. This in turn drives the representation consistency between the two formats, establishing a format-invariant retrieval process that maps unseen queries to stored facts. In contrast, the lack of such an objective in two-stage training results in inconsistent representations and failed recall. The consistency further localizes to the parameters updated by both formats, a set that is substantially larger under mixed training than under two-stage training. At the input level, the consistency leaves an interpretable signature: mixed training encodes facts in storage format from subject-relation tokens, the same components available in queries, while two-stage training relies on the full context. Our findings characterize the mechanisms of fact recall and offer mechanistic foundation for optimizing knowledge injection in LLMs.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 47 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2025.
Builds on
47 of 62 references.
References · 47
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
- 2023InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuningcited by 2,876
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2022InstructPix2Pix: Learning to Follow Image Editing Instructionscited by 2,611
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,100
- 2022Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Taskscited by 868
- 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 739
- 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
35 more
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
- 2021Knowledge Neurons in Pretrained Transformerscited by 601
- 2023Dissecting Recall of Factual Associations in Auto-Regressive Language Modelscited by 528
- 2023The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"cited by 407
- 2023Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methodscited by 359
- 2023Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probingcited by 334
- 2023Language Models Represent Space and Timecited by 316
- 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.1, Knowledge Storage and Extractioncited by 270
- 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 224
- 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 212
- 2023Linearity of Relation Decoding in Transformer Language Modelscited by 200
- 2023Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answeringcited by 151
- 2024How do Large Language Models Handle Multilingualism?cited by 150
- 2024Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Trackingcited by 149
- 2024The Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference?cited by 146
- 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.2, Knowledge Manipulationcited by 143
- 2023Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined taskscited by 115
- 2020Language Models as Knowledge Bases: On Entity Representations, Storage Capacity, and Paraphrased Queriescited by 107
- 2023Task-Specific Skill Localization in Fine-tuned Language Modelscited by 105
- 2024Universal Neurons in GPT2 Language Modelscited by 102
- 2023Neurons in Large Language Models: Dead, N-gram, Positionalcited by 88
- 2023Can Neural Network Memorization Be Localized?cited by 69
- 2022Finding Skill Neurons in Pre-trained Transformer-based Language Modelscited by 66
- 2024Instruction Pre-Training: Language Models are Supervised Multitask Learnerscited by 63
- 2024Knowledge Circuits in Pretrained Transformerscited by 60
- 2023Journey to the Center of the Knowledge Neurons: Discoveries of Language-Independent Knowledge Neurons and Degenerate Knowledge Neuronscited by 56
- 2024Instruction-tuned Language Models are Better Knowledge Learnerscited by 55
- 2024Reverse Training to Nurse the Reversal Cursecited by 49
- 2024What does the Knowledge Neuron Thesis Have to do with Knowledge?cited by 49
- 2023When Do Prompting and Prefix-Tuning Work? A Theory of Capabilities and Limitationscited by 43
- 2024Competition of Mechanisms: Tracing How Language Models Handle Facts and Counterfactualscited by 40
- 2024Backward Lens: Projecting Language Model Gradients into the Vocabulary Spacecited by 32
- 2024Understanding Finetuning for Factual Knowledge Extractioncited by 32
- 2025Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Improving Factuality in Legal Question Answeringcited by 28
- 2024Relation Also Knows: Rethinking the Recall and Editing of Factual Associations in Auto-Regressive Transformer Language Modelscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.