Mapping Post-Training Forgetting in Language Models at Scale
Jackson Harmon, Andreas Hochlehnert, Matthias Bethge, Ameya Prabhu
Abstract
Scaled post‑training now drives many of the largest capability gains in language models (LMs), yet its effect on pretrained knowledge remains poorly understood. Not all forgetting is equal: Forgetting one fact (e.g., a U.S. president or an API call) does not “average out” when recalling another. Hence, we propose a sample-wise paradigm to measure what is forgotten and when backward transfer occurs. Our metric counts 1→0 transitions (correct before post‑training, incorrect after) to quantify forgetting and 0→1 transitions to quantify backward transfer. Traditional task averages conflate these effects and obscure large changes. For multiple‑choice benchmarks, we add chance‑adjusted variants that subtract the expected contribution of random guessing from pre‑ and post‑training accuracies. We apply this framework across post‑training stages, model sizes, and data scales. Our large‑scale analysis across nearly 30 model pairs and 100 sub-benchmarks with up to 32,768 generated tokens per sample shows that: (1) Domain-continual pretraining induces moderate forgetting with low-to-moderate backward transfer; (2) RL/SFT post-training applied to base models and instruction tuning yields moderate-to-large backward transfer on math and logic with overall low-to-moderate forgetting; (3) Applying RL/SFT to instruction‑tuned models is sensitive on data scale: at small scales, both forgetting and backward transfer are small; at larger scales, effects are mixed and warrant further study with better controls; (4) Model merging does not reliably mitigate forgetting. Overall, our framework offers a practical yardstick for mapping how post‑training alters pretrained knowledge at scale -- enabling progress towards generally capable AI systems.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on17
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
Related papers
- Retaining by Doing: The Role of On-Policy Data in Mitigating ForgettingHoward Chen, Noam Razin, Karthik Narasimhan, Danqi ChenICML 2026
- Reinforcement Fine-Tuning Naturally Mitigates Forgetting in Continual Post-TrainingSong Lai, Haohan Zhao, Rong Feng, Changyi Ma et al.ICML 2026 · 46 citations
- Why Does Reinforcement Learning Generalize? A Feature-Level Mechanistic Study of Post-Training in Large Language ModelsDan Shi, Zhuowen Han, Simon Ostermann, Renren Jin et al.ACL 2026 · 1 citation
- Towards Understanding Continual Factual Knowledge Acquisition of Language Models: From Theory to AlgorithmHaoyu Wang, yifan shang, Zhongxiang Sun, Weijie Yu et al.ICML 2026
- Theoretical Perspectives on Data Quality and Synergistic Effects in Pre- and Post-Training Reasoning ModelsAdel Javanmard, Baharan Mirzasoleiman, Vahab MirrokniICML 2026 · 4 citations
