Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

How Do Large Language Models Acquire Factual Knowledge During Pretraining?

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 2406.11813 v3 pith:V6DAUWV6 submitted 2024-06-17 cs.CL

How Do Large Language Models Acquire Factual Knowledge During Pretraining?

classification cs.CL
keywords knowledgefactualpretrainingllmsacquireforgettingdataduring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite the recent observation that large language models (LLMs) can store substantial factual knowledge, there is a limited understanding of the mechanisms of how they acquire factual knowledge through pretraining. This work addresses this gap by studying how LLMs acquire factual knowledge during pretraining. The findings reveal several important insights into the dynamics of factual knowledge acquisition during pretraining. First, counterintuitively, we observe that pretraining on more data shows no significant improvement in the model's capability to acquire and maintain factual knowledge. Next, there is a power-law relationship between training steps and forgetting of memorization and generalization of factual knowledge, and LLMs trained with duplicated training data exhibit faster forgetting. Third, training LLMs with larger batch sizes can enhance the models' robustness to forgetting. Overall, our observations suggest that factual knowledge acquisition in LLM pretraining occurs by progressively increasing the probability of factual knowledge presented in the pretraining data at each step. However, this increase is diluted by subsequent forgetting. Based on this interpretation, we demonstrate that we can provide plausible explanations for recently observed behaviors of LLMs, such as the poor performance of LLMs on long-tail knowledge and the benefits of deduplicating the pretraining corpus.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Reality Monitoring in Large Language Models: Self-Knowledge That Transforms with Conversation Memory

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    LLMs' source-attribution ability is not fixed: it flips with conversational memory structure, and corrective feedback can invert judgments or sever confidence from accuracy.

  2. Child-directed speech facilitates production, not comprehension, in BabyLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CDS-trained BabyLMs show earlier and more appropriate production in a new frame-completion task while FineWeb-edu models lead on comprehension benchmarks, indicating current tests underestimate CDS benefits.

  3. Attributing Culture-Conditioned Generations to Pretraining Corpora

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    MEMOed framework attributes LLM generations about cultures to pretraining memorization and finds frequency-based biases across 110 cultures for food and clothing.