Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Inside-Out: Hidden Factual Knowledge in LLMs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

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 2503.15299 v4 pith:76FT3KBH submitted 2025-03-19 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords knowledgellmsanswerfactualhiddentheyanswersclosed-book
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This work presents a framework for assessing whether large language models (LLMs) encode more factual knowledge in their parameters than what they express in their outputs. While a few studies hint at this possibility, none has clearly defined or demonstrated this phenomenon. We first propose a formal definition of knowledge, quantifying it for a given question as the fraction of correct-incorrect answer pairs where the correct one is ranked higher. This gives rise to external and internal knowledge, depending on the information used to score individual answer candidates: either the model's observable token-level probabilities or its intermediate computations. Hidden knowledge arises when internal knowledge exceeds external knowledge. We then present a case study, applying this framework to three popular open-weights LLMs in a closed-book QA setup. Our results indicate that: (1) LLMs consistently encode more factual knowledge internally than what they express externally, with an average relative gap of 40%. (2) Surprisingly, some knowledge is so deeply hidden that a model can internally know an answer perfectly, yet fail to generate it even once, despite large-scale repeated sampling of 1,000 answers. This reveals fundamental limitations in the generation capabilities of LLMs, which (3) put a practical constraint on scaling test-time compute via repeated answer sampling in closed-book QA: significant performance improvements remain inaccessible because some answers are practically never sampled, yet if they were, we would be guaranteed to rank them first.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Improving LLMs via Validator-to-Generator Alignment

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Frequency-corrected rank alignment of an LLM generator to its own validator improves generator AUROC and G-V Pearson correlation by up to 27 points while preserving validator quality.

  2. Probing for Arithmetic Errors in Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Lightweight probes trained on hidden states decode both predicted and correct arithmetic results, detect errors with over 90% accuracy, and transfer from isolated addition to chain-of-thought reasoning.

  3. Existing Large Language Model Unlearning Evaluations Are Inconclusive

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Existing LLM unlearning evaluations are inconclusive: they can inject new information, depend heavily on task format, and rely on spurious correlations.

  4. Are the Hidden States Hiding Something? Testing the Limits of Factuality-Encoding Capabilities in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hidden-state factuality probes trained on synthetic statements do not generalize to LLM-generated factual statements, despite reproducing prior results on original datasets.

  5. Trustworthy Agents for Electronic Health Records through Confidence Estimation

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    TrustEHRAgent, an EHR assistant with step-by-step confidence checks, scores 44% and 25% accuracy on MIMIC-III and eICU when only answers it is 70% confident in are counted, while baseline methods score 0%.

Pith tools