Post-Hoc Reversal: Are We Selecting Models Prematurely?
Rishabh Ranjan, Saurabh Garg, Mrigank Raman, Carlos Guestrin, Zachary C. Lipton
Abstract
Trained models are often composed with post-hoc transforms such as temperature scaling (TS), ensembling and stochastic weight averaging (SWA) to improve performance, robustness, uncertainty estimation, etc. However, such transforms are typically applied only after the base models have already been finalized by standard means. In this paper, we challenge this practice with an extensive empirical study. In particular, we demonstrate a phenomenon that we call post-hoc reversal, where performance trends are reversed after applying post-hoc transforms. This phenomenon is especially prominent in high-noise settings. For example, while base models overfit badly early in training, both ensembling and SWA favor base models trained for more epochs. Post-hoc reversal can also prevent the appearance of double descent and mitigate mismatches between test loss and test error seen in base models. Preliminary analyses suggest that these transforms induce reversal by suppressing the influence of mislabeled examples, exploiting differences in their learning dynamics from those of clean examples. Based on our findings, we propose post-hoc selection, a simple technique whereby post-hoc metrics inform model development decisions such as early stopping, checkpointing, and broader hyperparameter choices. Our experiments span real-world vision, language, tabular and graph datasets. On an LLM instruction tuning dataset, post-hoc selection results in>1.5x MMLU improvement compared to naive selection.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext db59ab1f-c741-4695-ba45-a5362578819cCited by top-tier papers3
- Relational Transformer: Toward Zero-Shot Foundation Models for Relational DataRishabh Ranjan, Valter Hudovernik, Mark Znidar, Charilaos I. Kanatsoulis et al.ICLR 2026 · 35 citations
- PluRel: Synthetic Data unlocks Scaling Laws for Relational Foundation ModelsVignesh Kothapalli, Rishabh Ranjan, Valter Hudovernik, Vijay Prakash Dwivedi et al.ICML 2026 · 9 citations
- Relatron: Automating Relational Machine Learning over Relational DatabasesZhikai Chen, Han Xie, Jian Zhang, Jiliang Tang et al.ICLR 2026 · 2 citations
Builds on30
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMsTim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, Luke ZettlemoyerNeurIPS 2023 · 5,863 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-shot Performance of Language ModelsZihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein et al.ICML 2021 · 1,843 citations
- WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution ShiftsPang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie et al.ICML 2021 · 1,773 citations
Related papers
- Mapping Post-Training Forgetting in Language Models at ScaleJackson Harmon, Andreas Hochlehnert, Matthias Bethge, Ameya PrabhuICLR 2026 · 8 citations
- Progress or Regress? Self-Improvement Reversal in Post-trainingTing Wu, Xuefeng Li, Pengfei LiuICLR 2025
- Theoretical Perspectives on Data Quality and Synergistic Effects in Pre- and Post-Training Reasoning ModelsAdel Javanmard, Baharan Mirzasoleiman, Vahab MirrokniICML 2026 · 4 citations
- An Empirical Study of Translation Hypothesis Ensembling with Large Language ModelsAntónio Farinhas, José Guilherme Camargo de Souza, André F. T. MartinsEMNLP 2023 · 4 citations
- Context-Parametric Inversion: Why Instruction Finetuning May Not Actually Improve Context RelianceSachin Goyal, Christina Baek, J. Zico Kolter, Aditi RaghunathanICLR 2025
