Early Data Exposure Improves Robustness to Subsequent Fine-Tuning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
How can we train models whose post-trained capabilities survive subsequent fine-tuning? Rather than focusing on downstream interventions to mitigate forgetting of upstream capabilities, we study how upstream training choices - that is, the manner in which a capability is acquired - shape how robustly that capability is retained. We investigate this question in a controlled three-stage language-model pipeline: pretraining, post-training to acquire a target capability, and downstream fine-tuning on a new objective. Across 135M and 1B models, two post-training domains, and two downstream fine-tuning tasks, we find that immediate post-training performance does not reliably predict retention after subsequent fine-tuning: training recipes that look equivalent immediately after post-training can retain the target capability very differently after subsequent fine-tuning. In particular, early exposure - mixing post-training data into pretraining - consistently improves the frontier between retained upstream performance and downstream performance. In compute-matched experiments, where the target data must be allocated between pretraining and post-training, we find that the optimum lies at neither extreme. Together with our other empirical and theoretical findings, this supports the view that post-training drives immediate specialization while early exposure improves robustness to later forgetting. Replay and dropout, typically used to mitigate forgetting as it occurs during fine-tuning, provide complementary gains to early exposure when applied during post-training. Our findings suggest that robustness to subsequent fine-tuning should be treated as a first-class objective of upstream training, addressed preventatively through choices like early exposure rather than reactively during fine-tuning itself.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
21 of 28 references.
References · 21
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,718
- 2022Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference timecited by 1,366
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,106
- 2018Experience Replay for Continual Learningcited by 1,074
- 2021Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot modelscited by 785
- 2024TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMscited by 507
- 2025SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Modelcited by 307
- 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Modelscited by 284
- 2019Implicit Regularization of Discrete Gradient Dynamics in Linear Neural Networkscited by 122
- 2024Understanding Emergent Abilities of Language Models from the Loss Perspectivecited by 94
9 more
- 2025Overtrained Language Models Are Harder to Fine-Tunecited by 57
- 2024Scaling Laws for Predicting Downstream Performance in LLMscited by 48
- 2025Deep Ignorance: Filtering Pretraining Data Builds Tamper-Resistant Safeguards into Open-Weight LLMscited by 37
- 2025Scaling Laws for Forgetting during Finetuning with Pretraining Data Injectioncited by 35
- 2025Safety Pretraining: Toward the Next Generation of Safe AIcited by 35
- 2024Representation Shattering in Transformers: A Synthetic Study with Knowledge Editingcited by 18
- 2026Replaying pre-training data improves fine-tuningcited by 12
- 2026The Finetuner's Fallacy: When to Pretrain with Your Finetuning Datacited by 7
- 2026When Should We Introduce Safety Interventions During Pretraining?cited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.