Abstract
Reinforcement learning (RL) is often credited with improving language model reasoning at the expense of knowledge. We challenge this narrative by showing that reasoning models consistently outperform their instruction-tuned versions on pure knowledge recall tasks. These gains do not reflect newly acquired information, but rather an improved procedural skill in navigating and searching existing knowledge hierarchies within the model parameters. Structured prompting, which explicitly guides models through hierarchical traversal -- recovers most of the instruct-reasoning gap across five model families. A controlled RL experiment on unseen, non-extractable facts improves recall of held-out frequent but previously inaccessible facts, ruling out simple data exposure. On depth-stratified retrieval tasks, reasoning models exhibit superior traversal as retrieval depth grows. Layerwise activation analysis further shows that while factual representations maintain high cosine similarity between instruct and reasoning models, query representations diverge noticeably, indicating that reasoning primarily reshapes how models traverse knowledge rather than the knowledge representation itself. Finally, we find that distilled models often fail to match reasoning models on knowledge recall because they imitate self-correction without acquiring the exploratory behavior needed for hierarchical navigation. Together, these findings suggest that improving factual recall in LLMs depends not only on expanding what models know but also on teaching them to navigate it -- motivating future post-training methods that optimize traversal.
Explore similar work
May 8, 2026cs.CL
Reinforcement learning (RL) has achieved remarkable success in LLM reasoning, but whether it can also improve direct recall of parametric knowledge remains an open question. We study this question in a controlled zero-shot, one-hop, closed-book QA setting with no chain-of-thought, training only on binary correctness rewards and applying fact-level train-test deduplication to ensure gains reflect improved recall rather than reasoning or memorization. Across three model families and multiple factual QA benchmarks, RL yields ~27% average relative gains, surpassing both training- and inference-time baselines alike. Mechanistically, RL primarily redistributes probability mass over existing knowledge rather than acquiring new facts, moving correct answers from the low-probability tail into reliable greedy generations. Our data-attribution study reveals that the hardest examples are the most informative: those whose answers never appear in 128 pre-RL samples (only ~18% of training data) drive ~83% of the gain, since rare correct rollouts still emerge during training and get reinforced. Together, these findings broaden the role of RL beyond reasoning, repositioning it as a tool for unlocking rather than acquiring latent parametric knowledge.
Wanli Yang, Hongyu Zang, Junwei Zhang +5
Jul 14, 2026cs.CL
Language models encode substantial factual knowledge in their parameters, which can lead to unreliable behavior when this knowledge is outdated, incomplete, or misaligned with the provided context. In this work, we study whether modifying the pretraining signal can systematically shift models away from parametric recall and toward evidence-grounded reasoning. We introduce Knowledge--''Less'' Language Models (KLLMs), a fundamentally different epistemic training paradigm for LLMs, which are pretrained on corpora in which named entities are anonymized, thereby removing a primary channel for entity-linked factual supervision. This intervention substantially reduces closed-book factual recall, while often improving performance on tasks where relevant information is provided as context. Across multiple model scales, KLLMs consistently outperform matched baselines on contextual question answering, fact verification, and hallucination detection benchmarks. Crucially, in retrieval-grounded settings with imperfect evidence, KLLMs show improved robustness and achieve up to 20--25% relative gains over standard language models. They further exhibit better calibration, with improved ECE, Brier score, and AUROC, as well as more reliable abstention behavior. Our results demonstrate that suppressing entity-linked supervision during pretraining induces a shift in epistemic behavior: KLLMs rely less on parametric knowledge and more on external evidence, leading to improved reliability under realistic conditions. This suggests that pretraining-time control over knowledge acquisition can complement retrieval-augmented and tool-based systems by providing a more evidence-sensitive base model.
Roi Cohen, Yvan Carré, Nick Lechtenbörger +5
Jun 22, 2026cs.LG
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated that reinforcement fine-tuning of pretrained base models can lead to significant gains in reasoning performance at inference time. In this work, we theoretically analyze why reinforcement fine-tuning induces better reasoning ability than purely supervised fine-tuning (SFT) methods. We model chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning as a pathfinding problem on graphs and compare the popular method of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) against traditional SFT. We prove that SFT, when trained on golden shortest paths without negative examples, fails to learn how to efficiently backtrack. In contrast, an RLVR-trained model can learn how to efficiently backtrack from dead ends using only outcome reward. This leads to an exponential separation in inference-time compute between the two methods, and demonstrates that RLVR leads the model to learn the location of difficult decisions in a reasoning chain, ultimately allowing for better allocation of inference-time compute. Finally, we show that the reasoning traces of an RLVR model can be distilled to train a base model to backtrack efficiently as well.
Stanley Wei, Juno Kim