Chained Tuning Leads to Biased Forgetting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned for use on downstream tasks, though this can degrade capabilities learned during previous training. This phenomenon, often referred to as catastrophic forgetting, has important potential implications for the safety of deployed models. In this work, we first show that models trained on downstream tasks forget their safety tuning to a greater extent than models trained in the opposite order. Second, we show that forgetting disproportionately impacts safety information about certain groups. To quantify this phenomenon, we define a new metric we term biased forgetting. We conduct a systematic evaluation of the effects of task ordering on forgetting and apply mitigations that can help the model recover from the forgetting observed. We hope our findings can better inform methods for chaining the finetuning of LLMs in continual learning settings to enable training of safer and less toxic models.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Dec 2024.
Builds on
31 of 43 references.
References · 31
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,787
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2017Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learningcited by 1,898
- 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,822
- 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,255
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
- 2018Experience Replay for Continual Learningcited by 1,095
- 2018Efficient Lifelong Learning with A-GEMcited by 1,058
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
- 2021Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Modelscited by 966
19 more
- 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 956
- 2013An Empirical Investigation of Catastrophic Forgetting in Gradient-Based Neural Networkscited by 722
- 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 701
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 639
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
- 2017Measuring Catastrophic Forgetting in Neural Networkscited by 360
- 2019Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Reviewcited by 287
- 2017Three Factors Influencing Minima in SGDcited by 273
- 2023Progressive Prompts: Continual Learning for Language Modelscited by 197
- 2019Episodic Memory in Lifelong Language Learningcited by 188
- 2020Understanding the Role of Training Regimes in Continual Learningcited by 180
- 2020Anatomy of Catastrophic Forgetting: Hidden Representations and Task Semanticscited by 161
- 2022Fine-tuned Language Models are Continual Learnerscited by 156
- 2020Linear Mode Connectivity in Multitask and Continual Learningcited by 145
- 2023Understanding Catastrophic Forgetting in Language Models via Implicit Inferencecited by 144
- 2022CommonsenseQA 2.0: Exposing the Limits of AI through Gamificationcited by 109
- 2024Keeping LLMs Aligned After Fine-tuning: The Crucial Role of Prompt Templatescited by 96
- 2021SaFeRDialogues: Taking Feedback Gracefully after Conversational Safety Failurescited by 37
- 2024Multitask Mayhem: Unveiling and Mitigating Safety Gaps in LLMs Fine-tuningcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.