Pith. sign in

REVIEW 10 cited by

Physics of Language Models: Part 3.2, Knowledge Manipulation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.14402 v2 pith:75UMR4MT submitted 2023-09-25 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Zeyuan Allen-Zhu , Yuanzhi Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords knowledgemodelslanguageattributeeventasksclassificationcomparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Language models can store vast factual knowledge, yet their ability to flexibly use this knowledge for downstream tasks (e.g., via instruction finetuning) remains questionable. This paper investigates four fundamental knowledge manipulation tasks: retrieval (e.g., "What is person A's attribute X?"), classification (e.g., "Is A's attribute X even or odd?"), comparison (e.g., "Is A greater than B in attribute X?"), and inverse search (e.g., "Which person's attribute X equals T?"). We show that language models excel in knowledge retrieval but struggle even in the simplest classification or comparison tasks unless Chain of Thoughts (CoTs) are employed during both training and inference. Moreover, their performance in inverse knowledge search is virtually 0%, regardless of the prompts. Our primary contribution is a controlled, synthetic experiment that confirms these weaknesses are inherent to language models: they cannot efficiently manipulate knowledge from pre-training data, even when such knowledge is perfectly stored in the models, despite adequate training and sufficient model size. Our findings also apply to modern pretrained language models such as GPT-4, thus giving rise to many Turing tests to distinguish Humans from contemporary AIs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantifying Cross-Modality Memorization in Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning VLMs on image-only or text-only personas yields a significant, asymmetric cross-modal memorization gap that persists with model scale, unlearning, and multi-hop reasoning.

  2. The Power of Power Law: Asymmetry Enables Compositional Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Power-law data sampling creates beneficial asymmetry in the loss landscape that lets models acquire high-frequency skill compositions first, enabling more efficient learning of rare long-tail skills than uniform distr...

  3. DeFrame: Debiasing Large Language Models Against Framing Effects

    cs.CL 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM fairness scores shift substantially with positive vs negative framing of the same question, and DeFrame—a three-step self-revision prompt—reduces both average bias and this framing gap.

  4. Physics of Language Models: Part 4.1, Architecture Design and the Magic of Canon Layers

    cs.CL 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Canon layers—residual 1-d causal convolutions over adjacent tokens—boost synthetic reasoning depth 2-4x, lift NoPE to RoPE level, and bring GLA up to Mamba2/GDN, with qualitative real-world confirmation.

  5. VLMs Can Aggregate Scattered Training Patches

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Open-source VLMs can infer image IDs or safety labels after training only on scattered patches of those images, a capability that can be abused to bypass image moderation.

  6. Scalable Complexity Control Facilitates Reasoning Ability of LLMs

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Controlling model complexity through smaller initialization rates and stronger weight decay improved LLM benchmark scores and made loss-versus-scale curves descend faster.

  7. Decomposing Elements of Problem Solving: What "Math" Does RL Teach?

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reinforcement learning (GRPO) on math LLMs primarily increases execution robustness on already-solvable problems, not planning or coverage of new problems.

  8. Who Reasons in the Large Language Models?

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors hypothesize, with evidence from merging and freezing experiments, that the attention output projection is the primary locus of mathematical reasoning in large language models.

  9. Unifying Learning Dynamics and Generalization in Transformers Scaling Law

    cs.LG 2025-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Claims a two-stage transformer scaling law (exponential then C^{-1/6}) with matching bounds, but the lower bounds are missing, the exponent is inconsistent (-1/7 vs -1/6), and the law is an artifact of hand-set M = Θ(...

  10. Building Task Bots with Self-learning for Enhanced Adaptability, Extensibility, and Factuality

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A thesis that combines self-learning from dialog logs, schema-guided prompting, and self-aligned factuality to build task bots with minimal human intervention.

Pith tools