# Data Quality over Capacity: Internalizing Documents into LoRA Adapters for Closed-Book QA

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21861 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21861/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05904/) (2024)
- [Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.05934/) (2023)
- [Rephrasing the Web: A Recipe for Compute and Data-Efficient Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.16380/) (2024)
- [Physics of Language Models: Part 3.3, Knowledge Capacity Scaling Laws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05405/) (2024)
- [Cartridges: Lightweight and general-purpose long context representations via self-study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06266/) (2025)
- [Understanding LoRA as Knowledge Memory: An Empirical Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01097/) (2026)
- [Cartridges at Scale: Training Modular KV Caches over Large Document Collections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.04557/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We study baking documents directly into the weights of a 4-bit Gemma-4-e4b model via LoRA, so a system can answer questions about a corpus closed-book: no retrieval and no context-window budget. Across roughly 100 training runs from single documents to a 99-document corpus, we find that once adapter capacity is adequate, training-data quality is the dominant lever on closed-book accuracy, outweighing LoRA rank, learning rate, and two alternative architectures combined; capacity itself is a hard gate below which no data intervention helps. A single curation pass (shortening gold answers to canonical 1-6 word spans and dropping trivia) moved closed-book accuracy from 57.7% to 85.7% on a 15-document corpus, a larger jump than any architectural change. We confirm a capacity trend (rank must grow with corpus size) entangled with a coupling between rank and learning rate that we initially misdiagnosed. On a 15-document slice we add a real retrieval baseline: the internalized adapter (84.2% recall) beats a BM25-RAG pipeline with a base reader (58.9%) and even a realistic gold-chunk oracle (65.6%) at lower latency. We report the full arc, including three misdiagnoses, as a case study in debugging LLM training empirically.