Abstract
LLMs absorb vast knowledge from training data, yet their inherently probabilistic nature offers no guarantee that this knowledge will surface in their outputs. To bridge this gap, Knowledge Extraction Enhancement (KEE) techniques such as activation steering, decoding adjustments, and prompting modify inference, potentially reinforcing existing predictions or surfacing less accessible answers. Yet their evaluations centered on aggregate accuracy, which obscures diverse effects by collapsing recovered failures and disrupted successes into a single score. We introduce MAPLE, a unified framework for characterizing how KEE techniques affect parametric knowledge extraction. Its diagnostic metrics disentangle these effects at the surface, probability, and beyond-sampling levels by measuring answer recovery and disruption, gold-token rank shifts on unrecovered failures, and recovery of answers missed by fixed-budget sampling. We evaluate six KEE techniques spanning decoding, activation steering, and prompting across three model families: OLMo2, Qwen2.5, and Llama3. Our analysis reveals distinct effects and trade-offs across techniques, highlighting the value of MAPLE for understanding and comparing KEE beyond aggregate accuracy.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19827
