Revisiting Non-Verbatim Memorization in Large Language Models: The Role of Entity Surface Forms

While scaling laws govern aggregate large language model performance, no scaling law has linked factual recall to both model size and training-data composition. We evaluated 38 models on over 8,900 scholarly references evaluated by an automated reference verification system. Recall quality follows a sigmoid in the log-linear combination of model parameter count and topic representation in training data. These two variables alone explain 60% of the variance across 16 dense models from four families, rising to 74-94% within individual families. The form matches a superposition-inspired account in which recall is gated by a signal-to-noise ratio: signal strength scales with concept frequency and the noise floor with model capacity.

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.

Current LLM memory systems treat all personal facts identically, so stores grow without bound while retrieval precision degrades. The core challenge is lifecycle management: which memories should persist, which should be replaced, and at what rate, conditioned on the behavioral type of each fact. Fortunate Recall (FR) is a composable policy layer that classifies personal facts into a 10+1 behavioral ontology and applies category-specific lifecycle policies (differential temporal decay, slot-key supersession, event-time validity, and category-aware retrieval routing) as deterministic functions over LLM-extracted metadata. FR-Bank, our infrastructure-independent implementation, reaches a 76.9% pass rate on LifecycleBench, a new 516-question temporal-disambiguation benchmark, ahead of Mem0, A-MEM, Memory-R1, and MemoryOS (61% to 70.5%), and 75.2% on the full LongMemEval-S under the canonical Wu et al. judge protocol, so lifecycle policies impose no measurable cost on standard retrieval. A pre-registered ablation locates the gains: replacing the typed layer with three generic lifecycle primitives leaves correctness statistically unchanged (-1.7pp, 95% CI [-6.0, +2.7]), so the generic lifecycle metadata carries the correctness advantage, while the behavioral ontology carries calibration, halving downstream confabulation (12.0% vs 24.2%, p<0.001). End-to-end, FR-Bank cuts confabulation from Mem0's 45.1% to 22.4% over answered queries and from 32.2% to 13.0% over all queries while answering more of them correctly (31.2% vs 18.6%); the ranking replicates on the open-weight Kimi K2.5. The decomposition transfers to BEAM, an independently built benchmark: 46.8% correct vs Mem0's 32.9% over 280 questions, with the ontology's benefit concentrated in contradiction resolution and saturating near seven policy clusters. The ontology, benchmark, and code are released.