Understanding Finetuning for Factual Knowledge Extraction
Open accessAbstract
In this work, we study the impact of QA fine-tuning data on downstream factuality. We show that fine-tuning on lesser-known facts that are poorly stored during pretraining yields significantly worse factuality than fine-tuning on well-known facts, even when all facts are seen during pretraining. We prove this phenomenon theoretically, showing that training on lesser-known facts can lead the model to ignore subject entity names and instead output a generic plausible response even when the relevant factual knowledge is encoded in the model. On three question answering benchmarks (PopQA, Entity Questions, and MMLU) and two language models (Llama-2-7B and Mistral-7B), we find that (i) finetuning on a completely factual but lesser-known subset of the data deteriorates downstream factuality (5-10%) and (ii) finetuning on a subset of better-known examples matches or outperforms finetuning on the entire dataset. Ultimately, our results shed light on the interaction between pretrained knowledge and finetuning data and demonstrate the importance of taking into account how facts are stored in the pretrained model when fine-tuning for knowledge-intensive tasks.
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?
Catastrophic forgetting of continual memorization is inherent in LLMs.
“Self-evolving agents must continuously adapt to new tasks while retaining previously acquired knowledge, a challenge exacerbated by the catastrophic forgetting phenomenon (Ghosal et al., 2024) of continual memorization (Chen et al., 2024b) inherent in LLMs (Bell et al., 2025).”
From A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Ghosal et al., 2024
The Introduction reports that fine-tuning on less well-encoded facts can make a model answer incorrectly to questions it could previously answer. But Theorem 4.2 explains this as stored knowledge being suppressed in the output, not necessarily forgotten; the paper does not establish catastrophic forgetting as inherent in LLMs. In the citing sentence, the references to continual memorization and what is inherent in LLMs are attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Chen, A., Shwartz-Ziv, R., Cho, K., Leavitt, M. L., and Saphra, N. Sudden drops in the loss: Syntax acquisition, phase transitions, and simplicity bias in MLMs. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=MO5PiKHELW.
- Elsahar, H., Vougiouklis, P., Remaci, A., Gravier, C., Hare, J., Laforest, F., and Simperl, E. T-rex: A large scale align- ment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), 2018.
- Petroni, F., Rocktäschel, T., Lewis, P., Bakhtin, A., Wu, Y., Miller, A. H., and Riedel, S. Language models as knowledge bases? arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066, 2019. · arXiv
- Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., Sutskever, I., et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
- Roberts, A., Raffel, C., and Shazeer, N. How much knowl- edge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Webber, B., Cohn, T., He, Y., and Liu, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 5418-5426, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020. emnlp-main.437. URL https://aclanthology. org/2020.emnlp-main.437. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gao, H.-A., Geng, J., Hua, W., Hu, M., Juan, X., Liu, H., Liu, S., Qiu, J., Qi, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21046 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ghosal, G., Hashimoto, T., & Raghunathan, A.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- ORCID
- Hashimoto, Tatsunori
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2406.14785
- OpenAlex
- W4399992070
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Open Philanthropy Project
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- factuality, training data selection, large language models, MMLU
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