Current analyses of LLMs' parametric knowledge are largely output-centric, drawing conclusions about what a model knows without verifying what it was actually trained on. This leaves fundamental questions, such as whether a correct response reflects genuine generalization or rote memorization, grounded in speculation rather than evidence. To resolve these ambiguities, we introduce LUMOS, a diagnostic framework that traces knowledge along the causal chain from training-data exposure to behavioral output, leveraging OLMo 2 with its fully transparent training corpus. By grounding analysis in verified exposure, we reveal that models internally encode rare facts with high separability (84%) yet fail to express them behaviorally (54%), though this retrieval gap narrows with scale. Furthermore, when models are asked to self-reflect on their own answers, they perform reliably on trained content (83%) but drop to random-baseline levels (49%) on unseen content. This collapse persists even under chain-of-thought prompting, which inflates confidence signals rather than improving calibration. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that incorporating the training-data axis into LLM evaluation transforms speculative diagnoses into verifiable claims, and we advocate that this axis should be a standard component of knowledge assessment in LLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A 2×2 taxonomy of model knowledge states defined by data exposure ( D ) and behavioral accuracy ( A ), enriched with parametric and decoding depth (Probabilistic Confidence ( PC ), Decisional Consistency ( DC )).
Table 1: Datasets used for factual and reasoning QA evaluation. Seen datasets are drawn from corpora explicitly used during training, while unseen datasets are excluded from training.
Zero-shot
Few-shot (5)
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
OLMo 2
Types
Metrics
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
7B
Behavioral
Accuracy
75.53 (17)
70.09 (23)
33.88 (45)
32.92 (46)
78.99 (11)
76.04 (14)
35.70 (41)
36.62 (39)
DC
86.75 (17)
83.36 (22)
74.49 (36)
73.01 (41)
91.47 (5)
88.96 (14)
79.28 (30)
78.78 (31)
Self-Verify
28.00 (46)
34.29 (42)
61.27 (15)
66.30 (10)
26.52 (47)
29.77 (45)
59.94 (19)
63.61 (11)
Internal ( PC )
Norm. P
63.19 (15)
57.49 (19)
28.18 (41)
24.81 (43)
63.44 (14)
56.82 (21)
27.27 (42)
23.42 (44)
Table 2: Factual evaluation across Seen/Unseen splits under standard prompting (zero-shot and few-shot). Self-verify denotes the accuracy computed based on the corresponding confusion matrix. Numbers in parentheses denote relative ranks (lower is better).
Zero-shot
Few-shot (5)
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
OLMo 2
Metrics
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
7B
Accuracy
28.00
34.29
61.27
66.30
26.52
29.77
59.94
63.61
Precision
14.13
14.62
9.70
15.65
12.68
13.30
7.88
13.74
Recall
14.13
14.62
9.70
15.65
12.68
13.33
7.88
13.74
F1
14.13
14.62
9.70
15.65
12.68
13.31
7.88
13.74
Table 3: Self-Verify analysis results under standard prompting. (zero-shot and few-shot)
Zero-shot
Few-shot (5)
Head
Tail
Gap
Head
Tail
Gap
OLMo 2
Types
Metrics
7B
Behavioral
Accuracy
86.54 (10)
53.64 (23)
32.90 (-13)
88.80 (5)
63.28 (18)
25.52 (-13)
DC
92.71 (11)
74.01 (23)
18.70 (-12)
95.99 (5)
81.92 (16)
14.06 (-11)
Self-Verify
25.42 (22)
43.17 (16)
-17.75 (6)
23.69 (24)
35.84 (19)
-12.15 (5)
Internal (PC)
Norm. P
72.84 (8)
42.14 (19)
30.71 (-11)
71.85 (9)
41.79 (20)
30.06 (-11)
Table 4: Head vs. Tail evaluation (with Gap) under standard prompting (zero-shot and few-shot). Numbers in parentheses denote relative ranks (lower is better).
CoT Zero-shot
CoT Few-shot (5)
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
OLMo 2
Metrics
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
7B
Accuracy
31.95
36.79
62.09
66.41
26.09
29.94
55.21
61.35
Precision
12.70
15.69
13.21
18.24
18.57
22.02
18.90
22.03
Recall
12.46
14.69
12.81
18.10
13.33
16.22
14.84
20.86
F1
12.47
14.70
12.81
17.68
14.13
16.95
15.89
21.04
Table 5: Self-Verify analysis results under Chain-of-Thought prompting
CoT Zero-shot
CoT Few-shot (5)
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
OLMo 2
Types
Metrics
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
Academic
Web
RealTime QA
Current events
7B
Behavioral
Accuracy
71.25 (22)
66.34 (24)
31.74 (48)
32.01 (47)
75.63 (15)
74.10 (21)
35.10 (44)
35.58 (42)
DC
83.09 (24)
80.22 (28)
66.62 (48)
68.46 (47)
89.47 (12)
85.92 (20)
73.10 (40)
74.60 (35)
Self-Verify
31.95 (43)
36.79 (41)
62.09 (13)
66.41 (9)
26.09 (48)
29.94 (44)
55.21 (22)
61.35 (14)
Internal ( PC )
Norm. P
73.69 (4)
73.53 (5)
52.83 (27)
47.88 (28)
74.82 (3)
69.37 (11)
54.06 (25)
53.45 (26)
Table 6: Factual evaluation across Seen/Unseen splits under Chain-of-Thought prompting (zero-shot and few-shot).
7B
13B
32B
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Method
G8K Train
MMath
G8K Test
G1K
G-Sym
G8K Train
MMath
G8K Test
G1K
G-Sym
G8K Train
MMath
G8K Test
G1K
G-Sym
SFT
P @1
21.48
20.06
17.75
18.27
15.73
70.73
59.80
64.90
57.95
59.51
79.88
63.92
75.55
69.65
67.14
P @2
37.10
34.14
31.22
31.48
27.84
86.43
74.84
81.30
74.50
75.97
91.86
78.18
88.51
83.22
81.36
P @4
57.41
52.06
49.79
48.85
44.76
93.64
83.53
90.56
84.98
86.26
96.26
85.85
94.02
89.85
89.38
P @8
77.33
69.40
69.07
66.14
62.80
96.59
88.40
95.15
90.62
91.50
97.65
89.70
96.29
93.44
93.40
Table 7: Reasoning evaluation across Seen/Unseen splits and model variants.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Entity frequency distribution under head–tail stratification.
CoT Zero-shot
CoT Few-shot (5)
Head
Tail
Gap
Head
Tail
Gap
OLMo 2
Types
Metrics
7B
Behavioral
Accuracy
82.40 (12)
50.29 (24)
32.12 (-12)
87.94 (7)
60.27 (22)
27.67 (-15)
DC
90.32 (12)
70.12 (24)
20.20 (-12)
94.09 (9)
77.76 (21)
16.33 (-12)
Self-Verify
28.54 (21)
45.03 (15)
-16.49 (6)
24.38 (23)
35.51 (20)
-11.13 (3)
Internal (PC)
Norm. P
81.31 (2)
65.74 (11)
15.57 (-9)
76.45 (5)
62.29 (13)
14.16 (-8)
Appendix
Table 8: Head vs. Tail evaluation (with Gap) under Chain-of-Thought prompting (zero-shot and few-shot) (%). Numbers in parentheses denote relative ranks (lower is better).