Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can degrade factual behavior outside the target domain. This degradation is often described as catastrophic forgetting, yet open-ended factual failures do not necessarily imply that the underlying facts have been erased. In this work, we identify a more specific phenomenon, factual access failure: after domain SFT, models can still recognize or rank the correct answer under constrained evaluation, while failing to produce it in closed-book generation. Through benchmark-level comparisons, same-fact multiple-choice and generation probes, and failure-mode analysis, we show that SFT-induced factual degradation reflects both genuine wrong-answer generations and expression-level failures such as verbosity, formatting mismatch, and exact-match artifacts. To address this problem, we introduce Recall-Anchored Distillation (RAD), a base-anchored self-distillation objective that preserves out-of-distribution generation behavior by aligning the adapted model with the original base model's soft continuation distribution on unlabeled OOD text. RAD requires no gold OOD answers, external judges, or labeled factual data. Across three backbones fine-tuned on MedMCQA, RAD recovers a consistent portion of the lost OOD recall while preserving target-domain adaptation. Compared with replay on the same OOD text, RAD shows that the key preservation signal is the base model's soft distribution rather than additional text exposure alone.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 40 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.
Builds on
40 of 49 references.
References · 40
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 3,096
- 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,955
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,588
- 2016Learning without Forgettingcited by 2,496
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
28 more
- 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,128
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 639
- 2023Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 623
- 2022MedMCQA : A Large-scale Multi-Subject Multi-Choice Dataset for Medical domain Question Answeringcited by 543
- 2023Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Modelscited by 384
- 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinationscited by 244
- 2024Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?cited by 232
- 2020Recall and Learn: Fine-tuning Deep Pretrained Language Models with Less Forgettingcited by 170
- 2023Understanding Catastrophic Forgetting in Language Models via Implicit Inferencecited by 144
- 2024Revisiting Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Model Tuningcited by 99
- 2024Unfamiliar Finetuning Examples Control How Language Models Hallucinatecited by 87
- 2024Preserving Diversity in Supervised Fine-Tuning of Large Language Modelscited by 70
- 2024Factuality of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 66
- 2025Spurious Forgetting in Continual Learning of Language Modelscited by 51
- 2023Beyond Factuality: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models as Knowledge Generatorscited by 43
- 2025How do language models learn facts? Dynamics, curricula and hallucinationscited by 37
- 2024Unveiling the Generalization Power of Fine-Tuned Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2024Understanding Finetuning for Factual Knowledge Extractioncited by 32
- 2025Mitigating Forgetting in LLM Fine-Tuning via Low-Perplexity Token Learningcited by 14
- 2023Understanding Finetuning for Factual Knowledge Extraction from Language Modelscited by 13
- 2026Empty Shelves or Lost Keys? Recall Is the Bottleneck for Parametric Factualitycited by 12
- 2025WiCkeD: A Simple Method to Make Multiple Choice Benchmarks More Challengingcited by 11
- 2026On-Policy Replay for Continual Supervised Fine-Tuningcited by 8
- 2025Inside-Out: Hidden Factual Knowledge in LLMscited by 7
- 2026Why Fine-Tuning Encourages Hallucinations and How to Fix Itcited by 7
- 2024Fine Tuning Large Language Models for Medicine: The Role and Importance of Direct Preference Optimizationcited by 6
- 2025Self-Correcting Large Language Models: Generation vs. Multiple Choicecited by 6
- 2025From Parameters to Prompts: Understanding and Mitigating the Factuality Gap between Fine-Tuned LLMscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026STALE: Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid?
- 2026Auditing Forgetting in Limited Memory Language Models
- 2023Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity
- 2026Skill-RAG: Failure-State-Aware Retrieval Augmentation via Hidden-State Probing and Skill Routing
- 2026ConsistencyGate: Preventing Memory Contamination in LLM Agents via Self-Consistency Admission Control
- 2026MixSD: Mixed Contextual Self-Distillation for Knowledge Injection
- 2024Efficient Knowledge Injection in LLMs via Self-Distillation
- 2024FactAlign: Long-form Factuality Alignment of Large Language Models