Headlines You Won't Forget: Can Pronoun Insertion Increase Memorability?

Recent work on extractable memorization in LLMs suffers from two contrasting validity problems. Some studies overstate extraction, e.g., relying on sequences too short to distinguish memorization from predictability. Others imply that extraction is unreliable evidence of memorization, since models can also reproduce real-world text they weren't explicitly trained on. In different ways, both overlook what makes a valid extraction claim: the model must generate a training sequence with high enough probability to indicate memorization. To determine what's high enough, one has to perform a matched comparison: measuring the generation probabilities of both the training sequences of interest and comparable non-training sequences. Because non-training sequences cannot have been memorized, their probabilities provide a baseline for predictability; a training sequence exceeding this baseline provides evidence of memorization. We formalize matched comparisons in two ways: (1) a conformal test that calibrates a threshold to a chosen FPR when training and non-training sequences are sampled from populations, and (2) a census that calibrates against a matched non-training document when the object is a single document (e.g., a book). We show that matched comparisons enable rigorous, calibrated memorization claims, and reveal where prior setups have validity issues. For instance, on Wikipedia OLMo 2 32B reproduces non-training 10-token suffixes roughly 24% as often as training ones: that share of the training generation rate reflects false positives, not memorization. For Llama 3.1 70B on books, the thresholds we calibrate are as low as 1e-27, supporting memorization claims for sequences that no feasible sampling budget would extract. Based on these results, we refine "extractable memorization" to require a valid memorization claim and near-certain generation within a realistic budget.

Faithful and robust pronoun use is important for fair and coherent generations, yet large language models largely fail when multiple referents use different pronouns. To study the interplay of reasoning, repetition, and bias in this task, prior work relies exclusively on behavioural approaches, which may not reflect a model's internal workings. Therefore, we provide a mechanistic, model-internal perspective on pronoun fidelity, testing whether three mechanisms -- group entity binding (G), recency bias (R), and stereotypical bias (S) -- are causally implemented across several SOTA language models. Using Boundless Distributed Alignment Search, we find all three coexist as causal subspaces distributed across network depth. No single mechanism fully explains model behaviour, but a combination of the three consistently accounts for 91-99.5%. An attention head analysis further reveals two competing copying routes; group binding and stereotype share a localized concept-level route that retrieves a bound occupation-pronoun unit, while recency uses a distributed token-level route that repeats surface forms. In sum, pronoun fidelity arises from competition between simultaneously active causal subspaces.

Fill-in-the-middle (FIM) is a pretraining objective widely used to equip causal language models with infilling ability, yet its effect on verbatim memorization remains underexplored. We study the memorization dynamics of FIM in a controlled setting by pretraining matched Llama 3.2 models with FIM and standard left-to-right (LTR) objectives on a FineWeb-Gutenberg corpus containing repeated Gutenberg excerpts. With prefix-based probes, FIM more often recovers short or partially matching spans, while LTR more often assigns high confidence to long exact continuations. We observe that verbatim extraction under FIM-training grows approximately linearly with repetitions over the tested range. Evaluating native FIM-format probes reveals that suffix context is not sufficient: verbatim recall under FIM-training remains strongly anchored in prefix context. Our results also show that evaluating only one span length or probing format can miss important nuances in memorization behavior.