Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledge
Open accessAbstract
The Internet contains a wealth of knowledge -- from the birthdays of historical figures to tutorials on how to code -- all of which may be learned by language models. However, while certain pieces of information are ubiquitous on the web, others appear extremely rarely. In this paper, we study the relationship between the knowledge memorized by large language models and the information in pre-training datasets scraped from the web. In particular, we show that a language model's ability to answer a fact-based question relates to how many documents associated with that question were seen during pre-training. We identify these relevant documents by entity linking pre-training datasets and counting documents that contain the same entities as a given question-answer pair. Our results demonstrate strong correlational and causal relationships between accuracy and relevant document count for numerous question answering datasets (e.g., TriviaQA), pre-training corpora (e.g., ROOTS), and model sizes (e.g., 176B parameters). Moreover, while larger models are better at learning long-tail knowledge, we estimate that today's models must be scaled by many orders of magnitude to reach competitive QA performance on questions with little support in the pre-training data. Finally, we show that retrieval-augmentation can reduce the dependence on relevant pre-training information, presenting a promising approach for capturing the long-tail.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Following Kandpal et al. (2022) and Mallen et al. (2023), accuracy is used as the primary evaluation metric.
“Following Kandpal et al. (2022) and Mallen et al. (2023), we use accuracy as our primary evaluation metric, judging whether any of the cor- rect answers (as taken from the NaturalQuestions annotations) appear in the predicted output.”
From Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts (2024) · cites this paper as Kandpal et al. (2022)
Prior work has found large effects of input probability on LLM performance on arithmetic and factual recall.
“Additional situations where input probability has a large effect can be found in prior work studying LLM performance on arithmetic (33) and factual recall (34, 35).”
From Embers of autoregression show how large language models are shaped by the problem they are trained to solve (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
It is challenging for language models to memorize long-tail information, which refers to low-frequency data.
“However, it is challenging for language models to memorize long-tail information, which refers to the low-frequency data [167, 28].”
From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 143
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- Aky¨ urek, E., Bolukbasi, T., Liu, F., Xiong, B., Tenney, I., Andreas, J., and Guu, K. Tracing knowledge in language models back to the training data. In Findings of EMNLP , 2022.
- Black, S., Biderman, S., Hallahan, E., Anthony, Q., Gao, L., Golding, L., He, H., Leahy, C., McDonell, K., Phang, J., et al. GPT-Neox-20B: An open-source autoregressive language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06745 , 2022. · arXiv
- Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS , 2020.
- Carlini, N., Liu, C., Erlingsson, ´ U., Kos, J., and Song, D. The secret sharer: Evaluating and testing unintended memorization in neural networks. In USENIX Security Symposium , 2019.
- Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., HerbertVoss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., Oprea, A., and Raffel, C. Extracting training data from large language models. In USENIX Security Symposium , 2021.
- De Cao, N., Izacard, G., Riedel, S., and Petroni, F. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In ICLR , 2021.
- Elazar, Y., Kassner, N., Ravfogel, S., Feder, A., Ravichander, A., Mosbach, M., Belinkov, Y., Sch¨ utze, H., and Goldberg, Y. Measuring causal effects of data statistics on language model's factual predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.14251 , 2022. · arXiv
- Elsahar, H., Vougiouklis, P., Remaci, A., Gravier, C., Hare, J., Laforest, F., and Simperl, E. T-REx: A large scale alignment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In LREC , 2018.
- F´ evry, T., Soares, L. B., FitzGerald, N., Choi, E., and Kwiatkowski, T. Entities as experts: Sparse memory access with entity supervision. In EMNLP , 2020.
- Gao, L., Biderman, S., Black, S., Golding, L., Hoppe, T., Foster, C., Phang, J., He, H., Thite, A., Nabeshima, N., et al. The Pile: An 800GB dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027 , 2020. · arXiv
- Guu, K., Lee, K., Tung, Z., Pasupat, P., and Chang, M. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In ICML , 2020.
- Han, X. and Tsvetkov, Y. ORCA: Interpreting prompted language models via locating supporting data evidence in the ocean of pretraining data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12600 , 2022. · arXiv
- Ippolito, D., Tram` er, F., Nasr, M., Zhang, C., Jagielski, M., Lee, K., Choquette-Choo, C. A., and Carlini, N. Preventing verbatim memorization in language models gives a false sense of privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17546 , 2022. · arXiv
- Izacard, G. and Grave, E. Distilling knowledge from reader to retriever for question answering. In ICLR , 2021.
- Jagielski, M., Thakkar, O., Tramer, F., Ippolito, D., Lee, K., Carlini, N., Wallace, E., Song, S., Thakurta, A., Papernot, N., et al. Measuring forgetting of memorized training examples. In ICLR , 2023.
- Joshi, M., Choi, E., Weld, D. S., and Zettlemoyer, L. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In ACL , 2017.
- Kandpal, N., Wallace, E., and Raffel, C. Deduplicating training data mitigates privacy risks in language models. In ICML , 2022.
- Karpukhin, V., O˘ guz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., and Yih, W.-t. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In EMNLP , 2020.
- Kwiatkowski, T., Palomaki, J., Rhinehart, O., Collins, M., Parikh, A., Alberti, C., Epstein, D., Polosukhin, I., Kelcey, M., Devlin, J., et al. Natural Questions: A benchmark for question answering research. In TACL , 2019.
- Laurenc ¸on, H., Saulnier, L., Wang, T., Akiki, C., del Moral, A. V., Scao, T. L., Werra, L. V., Mou, C., Ponferrada, E. G., Nguyen, H., Frohberg, J., ˇ Saˇ sko, M., Lhoest, Q., McMillan-Major, A., et al. The BigScience ROOTS corpus: A 1.6TB composite multilingual dataset. In NeurIPS , 2022.
- Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., and Toutanova, K. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In ACL , 2019.
- Lee, K., Ippolito, D., Nystrom, A., Zhang, C., Eck, D., Callison-Burch, C., and Carlini, N. Deduplicating training data makes language models better. In ACL , 2021.
- Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., K¨ uttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-t., Rockt¨ aschel, T., et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledgeintensive NLP tasks. In NeurIPS , 2020.
- Liu, L., Lewis, P., Riedel, S., and Stenetorp, P. Challenges in generalization in open domain question answering. In Findings of NAACL , 2022.
- Mallen, A., Asai, A., Zhong, V., Das, R., Hajishirzi, H., and Khashabi, D. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and nonparametric memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511 , 2022. · arXiv
- Mendes, P. N., Jakob, M., Garc´ ıa-Silva, A., and Bizer, C. DBpedia Spotlight: Shedding light on the web of documents. In International Conference on Semantic Systems , 2011.
- Petroni, F., Rockt¨ aschel, T., Lewis, P., Bakhtin, A., Wu, Y., Miller, A. H., and Riedel, S. Language models as knowledge bases? In EMNLP , 2019.
- Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., Liu, P. J., et al. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. In JMLR , 2020.
- Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., and Liang, P. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In EMNLP , 2016.
- Rao, R. M., Liu, J., Verkuil, R., Meier, J., Canny, J., Abbeel, P., Sercu, T., and Rives, A. Msa transformer. In ICML , 2021.
- Razeghi, Y., Logan IV, R. L., Gardner, M., and Singh, S. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 , 2022.
- Roberts, A., Raffel, C., and Shazeer, N. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In EMNLP , 2020.
- Scao, T. L., Fan, A., Akiki, C., Pavlick, E.-J., Ili'c, S., Hesslow, D., Castagn'e, R., Luccioni, A. S., Yvon, F., Gall´ e, M., Tow, J., Rush, A. M., et al. BLOOM: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100 , 2022. · arXiv
- Shin, S., Lee, S.-W., Ahn, H., Kim, S., Kim, H., Kim, B., Cho, K., Lee, G., Park, W., Ha, J.-W., et al. On the effect of pretraining corpora on in-context learning by a large-scale language model. In NAACL , 2022.
- Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., and Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. In NeurIPS , 2017.
- Wang, T., Roberts, A., Hesslow, D., Scao, T. L., Chung, H. W., Beltagy, I., Launay, J., and Raffel, C. What language model architecture and pretraining objective work best for zero-shot generalization? In ICML , 2022.
- Wei, J., Garrette, D., Linzen, T., and Pavlick, E. Frequency effects on syntactic rule learning in transformers. In EMNLP , 2021.
- Authors
- Kandpal, N., Deng, H., Roberts, A., Wallace, E., & Raffel, C.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2211.08411
- OpenAlex
- W4309217888
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 33
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2112635)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- long-tail knowledge, large language models, pre-training data, document frequency, entity linking, question answering, model scaling, retrieval-augmented generation, TriviaQA
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
