惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

Y
Y Combinator Blog
腾讯CDC
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
H
Help Net Security
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
博客园_首页
D
DataBreaches.Net
P
Proofpoint News Feed
云风的 BLOG
云风的 BLOG
V
Visual Studio Blog
月光博客
月光博客
Jina AI
Jina AI
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
博客园 - 【当耐特】
Vercel News
Vercel News
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
J
Java Code Geeks
博客园 - 聂微东
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
U
Unit 42

cs.AI updates on arXiv.org

Policy Split: Incentivizing Dual-Mode Exploration in LLM Reinforcement with Dual-Mode Entropy Regularization METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models Think Before you Write: QA-Guided Reasoning for Character Descriptions in Books METRO: Towards Strategy Induction from Expert Dialogue Transcripts for Non-collaborative Dialogues Retrieval as Generation: A Unified Framework with Self-Triggered Information Planning Do LLMs Know Tool Irrelevance? Demystifying Structural Alignment Bias in Tool Invocations Enhancing Multimodal Large Language Models for Ancient Chinese Character Evolution Analysis via Glyph-Driven Fine-Tuning Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method CocoaBench: Evaluating Unified Digital Agents in the Wild MathAgent: Adversarial Evolution of Constraint Graphs for Mathematical Reasoning Data Synthesis Efficient Training for Cross-lingual Speech Language Models Shared Emotion Geometry Across Small Language Models: A Cross-Architecture Study of Representation, Behavior, and Methodological Confounds A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of Persona Steering on LLM Capabilities Uncertainty-Aware Web-Conditioned Scientific Fact-Checking When Valid Signals Fail: Regime Boundaries Between LLM Features and RL Trading Policies When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection Mem$^2$Evolve: Towards Self-Evolving Agents via Co-Evolutionary Capability Expansion and Experience Distillation AOP-Smart: A RAG-Enhanced Large Language Model Framework for Adverse Outcome Pathway Analysis Advancing Polish Language Modeling through Tokenizer Optimization in the Bielik v3 7B and 11B Series TInR: Exploring Tool-Internalized Reasoning in Large Language Models Do BERT Embeddings Encode Narrative Dimensions? A Token-Level Probing Analysis of Time, Space, Causality, and Character in Fiction Generating Multiple-Choice Knowledge Questions with Interpretable Difficulty Estimation using Knowledge Graphs and Large Language Models Deep-Reporter: Deep Research for Grounded Multimodal Long-Form Generation Too Nice to Tell the Truth: Quantifying Agreeableness-Driven Sycophancy in Role-Playing Language Models Learning and Enforcing Context-Sensitive Control for LLMs Efficient Process Reward Modeling via Contrastive Mutual Information Computational Lesions in Multilingual Language Models Separate Shared and Language-specific Brain Alignment Bridging Linguistic Gaps: Cross-Lingual Mapping in Pre-Training and Dataset for Enhanced Multilingual LLM Performance Early Decisions Matter: Proximity Bias and Initial Trajectory Shaping in Non-Autoregressive Diffusion Language Models LLMs Should Incorporate Explicit Mechanisms for Human Empathy
NanoKnow: How to Know What Your Language Model Knows
Lingwei Gu, Nour Jedidi, Jimmy Lin · 2026-02-24 · via cs.AI updates on arXiv.org

How do large language models (LLMs) know what they know? Answering this question has been difficult because pre-training data is often a "black box" - unknown or inaccessible. The recent release of nanochat - a family of small LLMs with fully open pre-training data - addresses this as it provides a transparent view into where a model's parametric knowledge comes from. Towards the goal of understanding how knowledge is encoded by LLMs, we release NanoKnow, a benchmark dataset that partitions questions from Natural Questions and SQuAD into splits based on whether their answers are present in nanochat's pre-training corpus. Using these splits, we can now properly disentangle the sources of knowledge that LLMs rely on when producing an output. To demonstrate NanoKnow's utility, we conduct experiments using eight nanochat checkpoints. Our findings show: (1) closed-book accuracy is strongly influenced by answer frequency in the pre-training data, (2) providing external evidence can mitigate this frequency dependence, (3) even with external evidence, models are more accurate when answers were seen during pre-training, demonstrating that parametric and external knowledge are complementary, and (4) non-relevant information is harmful, with accuracy decreasing based on both the position and the number of non-relevant contexts. We release all NanoKnow artifacts at https://github.com/castorini/NanoKnow.