How Do Large Language Models Acquire Factual Knowledge During Pretraining?
Hoyeon Chang; Jinho Park; Seonghyeon Ye; Sohee Yang; Youngkyung Seo; Du-Seong Chang; Minjoon Seo · 2024 · arXiv
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
The finding, in one line
“First, counterintuitively, we observe that pretraining on more data shows no significant improvement in the model's capability to acquire and maintain factual knowledge.”
Abstract (excerpt)
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.
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science
Negative / Null Result ReportDefining and detecting quantum speedup
Negative / Null Result ReportService robots in hotels: understanding the service quality perceptions of human-robot interaction
Negative / Null Result ReportBoosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review
Negative / Null Result ReportFINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: A META‐ANALYSIS
Negative / Null Result ReportThe impact of site-specific digital histology signatures on deep learning model accuracy and bias
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: arXiv
