Empty Shelves or Lost Keys? Recall Is the Bottleneck for Parametric Factuality

Standard factuality evaluations of LLMs treat all errors alike, obscuring whether failures arise from missing knowledge (empty shelves) or from limited access to encoded facts (lost keys). We propose a behavioral framework that profiles factual knowledge at the level of facts rather than questions, characterizing each fact by whether it is encoded, and then by how accessible it is: cannot be recalled, can be directly recalled, or can only be recalled with inference-time computation (thinking). To support such profiling, we introduce WikiProfile, a new benchmark constructed via an automated pipeline with a prompted LLM grounded in web search. Across 4 million responses from 13 LLMs, we find that encoding is nearly saturated in frontier models on our benchmark, with GPT-5 and Gemini-3 encoding 95-98% of facts. However, recall remains a major bottleneck: many errors previously attributed to missing knowledge instead stem from failures to access it. These failures are systematic and disproportionately affect long-tail facts and reverse questions. Finally, we show that thinking improves recall and can recover a substantial fraction of failures, indicating that future gains may rely less on scaling and more on methods that improve how models utilize what they already encode. Figure 1 | Top: We propose five knowledge profiles that characterize facts. Bottom: Percentages of these profiles across selected LLMs, revealing: (1) Scaling fills "empty shelves" by reducing encoding failures: frontier LLMs encode nearly all facts in our data. (2) Recall failures remain abundant despite scaling, leaving substantial room for improvement. (3) Thinking acts as a recovery mechanism of facts that would otherwise remain "lost".