Empty Shelves or Lost Keys? Recall Is the Bottleneck for Parametric Factuality
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Standard factuality evaluations of LLMs treat all errors alike, obscuring whether failures arise from missing knowledge (empty shelves) or from limited access to encoded facts (lost keys). We propose a behavioral framework that profiles factual knowledge at the level of facts rather than questions, characterizing each fact by whether it is encoded, and then by how accessible it is: cannot be recalled, can be directly recalled, or can only be recalled with inference-time computation (thinking). To support such profiling, we introduce WikiProfile, a new benchmark constructed via an automated pipeline with a prompted LLM grounded in web search. Across 4 million responses from 13 LLMs, we find that encoding is nearly saturated in frontier models on our benchmark, with GPT-5 and Gemini-3 encoding 95--98% of facts. However, recall remains a major bottleneck: many errors previously attributed to missing knowledge instead stem from failures to access it. These failures are systematic and disproportionately affect long-tail facts and reverse questions. Finally, we show that thinking improves recall and can recover a substantial fraction of failures, indicating that future gains may rely less on scaling and more on methods that improve how models utilize what they already encode.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 15 Feb 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 12.
12 papers.
- 2026Thinking to Recall: How Reasoning Unlocks Parametric Knowledge in LLMscited by 16
- 2026Why Fine-Tuning Encourages Hallucinations and How to Fix Itcited by 7
- 2026Hallucination as Commitment Failure: Larger LLMs Misfire Despite Knowing the Answercited by 2
- 2026Synthetic Mixed Training: Scaling Parametric Knowledge Acquisition Beyond RAGcited by 1
- 2026MoRFI: Monotonic Sparse Autoencoder Feature Identificationcited by 0
- 2026Language models struggle with compartmentalizationcited by 0
- 2026LMs as Task-Specific Knowledge Bases: An Interpretability Analysiscited by 0
- 2026From Storage to Access: Verifiable Activation of Parametric Knowledge in LLMs via Explicit Priming and Implicit Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillationcited by 0
- 2026Stick to What You Know: A Study of Knowledge-Aligned Supervised Fine-Tuningcited by 0
- 2026Why Pretraining Fails to Share Cross-Lingual Knowledgecited by 0
- 2026Knowing When Thinking Is Not Enough: Teaching Small Reasoning Models to Reason Beyond Their Parametric Knowledgecited by 0
- 2026Knowing When Thinking Is Not Enough: Teaching Small Reasoning Models to Reason Beyond Their Parametric Knowledge28 Sep 2026
- 2026Why Pretraining Fails to Share Cross-Lingual Knowledge16 Sep 2026
- 2026Stick to What You Know: A Study of Knowledge-Aligned Supervised Fine-Tuning31 Aug 2026
- 2026Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillation21 Aug 2026
- 2026From Storage to Access: Verifiable Activation of Parametric Knowledge in LLMs via Explicit Priming and Implicit Reasoning19 Aug 2026
- 2026LMs as Task-Specific Knowledge Bases: An Interpretability Analysis25 Jun 2026
- 2026Hallucination as Commitment Failure: Larger LLMs Misfire Despite Knowing the Answer21 May 2026
- 2026Language models struggle with compartmentalization19 May 2026
- 2026MoRFI: Monotonic Sparse Autoencoder Feature Identification29 Apr 2026
- 2026Why Fine-Tuning Encourages Hallucinations and How to Fix It16 Apr 2026
- 2026Synthetic Mixed Training: Scaling Parametric Knowledge Acquisition Beyond RAG24 Mar 2026
- 2026Thinking to Recall: How Reasoning Unlocks Parametric Knowledge in LLMs10 Mar 2026