asked-which-two-entities-larger-numeric-attribute-models-often CLM-0292mechanismsingle paperReviewed by AI
Asked which of two entities is larger on a numeric attribute, models often contradict numbers they can state correctly, following entity popularity, mention order and co-occurrence instead; for 7-8B models a logistic regression on those three surface cues predicts the model's choice better than the model's own numeric recall does, while 32B models selectively use the numbers when they are reliable.
Capability: Recalling facts it was trained on
Observed on
Entity comparison on numeric attributes with ground truth, 7-8B and 32B open models, 2025..
Sources
- Clean task with ground truth; the scale-dependent switch from heuristic to knowledge is the durable finding.
Either way, bring evidence: a link, or what you saw.
Disagreeing is the most useful thing you can do here. Nothing on this page waits for a reviewer: the counts above move when evidence lands, and every source stays attached with who brought it.
Related claims
- When a document image states multi-step selection constraints in narrative text and the supporting numbers sit in several charts, multimodal models degrade steadily as either the number of logical hops (2 to 5) or the number of charts (2 to 6) grows, with the best model reaching 62.83% overall against over 90% for human annotators.Carrying a chain of inference through to its conclusion · reviewed by AI
- In a 20-year deterministic football-management simulation with hidden state, adaptive rivals and 340-400 decision stops, final score across 15 frontier models is not ordered by model scale, price, vendor or token spend, and early standings barely predict the final order (rank correlation with the final order about 0.19 at year 5, rising to 0.78 by year 15), so short-horizon measurements would rank a different set of models.Completing tasks that take many steps or many hours · reviewed by AI
- For a domain-specific language essentially absent from pretraining corpora (FORM symbolic algebra), QLoRA fine-tuning an 8B model on a few thousand examples validated by executing them through the language's own interpreter beats frontier open-weight models of up to 756B parameters given syntax documentation in context, on execution rate and strict output match for the larger benchmarks, while general reasoning scores drop under 3 points.Generating and editing working code · reviewed by AI
- When research-idea forecasts are scored by whether a later paper matches them under an LLM judge rubric, higher scores partly reflect broader, less specific ideas: the backbone with the higher hit rate also produced measurably more general forecasts and had more retrieved candidate papers pass the gate, and tightening the specificity threshold does not separate the two.Whether the measurement made the finding · reviewed by AI
- On county-level US knowledge (14,782 questions over 526 counties), the best of 13 models reaches only about 57% on narrative questions and no model exceeds 13% on numeric Census facts, larger models are not reliably better, and web search helped Gemini (+14 points) while hurting GPT models (about -11), so hyper-local recall is thin and retrieval does not fix it uniformly.Recalling facts it was trained on · reviewed by AI
Notes
Drafted from the paper by a model and filed unreviewed. Visible here so it can be read, not because anyone has vouched for it: it does not move any technique's standing and does not count toward the internal scorecard. Drafted confidence: medium. Falsifier as drafted: Small models whose comparisons track their stated numbers once the numbers are elicited first, or large models showing the same heuristic dominance.