Abstract
Current analyses of LLMs' parametric knowledge are largely output-centric, drawing conclusions about what a model knows without verifying what it was actually trained on. This leaves fundamental questions, such as whether a correct response reflects genuine generalization or rote memorization, grounded in speculation rather than evidence. To resolve these ambiguities, we introduce LUMOS, a diagnostic framework that traces knowledge along the causal chain from training-data exposure to behavioral output, leveraging OLMo 2 with its fully transparent training corpus. By grounding analysis in verified exposure, we reveal that models internally encode rare facts with high separability (84%) yet fail to express them behaviorally (54%), though this retrieval gap narrows with scale. Furthermore, when models are asked to self-reflect on their own answers, they perform reliably on trained content (83%) but drop to random-baseline levels (49%) on unseen content. This collapse persists even under chain-of-thought prompting, which inflates confidence signals rather than improving calibration. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that incorporating the training-data axis into LLM evaluation transforms speculative diagnoses into verifiable claims, and we advocate that this axis should be a standard component of knowledge assessment in LLMs.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02902
