Diff Mining: Logit Differences Reveal Finetuning Objectives
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Finetuning has become the gold standard for refining existing behaviors and inducing new ones in language models, yet it often remains unclear exactly which behaviors emerge during this process. As models grow ever more capable, understanding finetuning better becomes increasingly important, particularly since unwanted behaviors may arise during finetuning. In this paper, we introduce Diff Mining, a simple yet effective framework for identifying what a finetuned model has learned by comparing its logits to those of its base model. Diff Mining effectively surfaces salient tokens that are amplified in the finetuned model, serving as a fingerprint of its training -- even on text unrelated to the finetuning domain. Unlike many existing model diffing methods which require model internals, Diff Mining only needs access to output logits and scales to large models. The framework consists of two modular stages: (i) extracting per-context logit differences between the finetuned and base models on a reference corpus, and (ii) aggregating the resulting signals to construct an interpretable token set representing the finetune. For aggregation, we explore both a simple Top-K frequency method and a Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF)-based approach for disentangling multiple finetuning objectives into distinct token clusters. Empirically, Diff Mining succeeds across diverse settings: on finetune domain detection, it significantly outperforms state-of-the-art model diffing methods both in identifying relevant tokens and in downstream performance when an interpretability agent is given access to the extracted token set; on models with injected biases, it identifies more than one third of the biases without targeted probing. Overall, our framework shows promise in developing auditing tools to detect finetuning objectives.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.
Builds on
18 of 56 references.
References · 18
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,160
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
- 2023MEDITRON-70B: Scaling Medical Pretraining for Large Language Modelscited by 274
- 2024Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language Modelscited by 235
- 2023CulturaX: A Cleaned, Enormous, and Multilingual Dataset for Large Language Models in 167 Languagescited by 174
- 2024Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Trackingcited by 149
- 2025Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in datacited by 95
- 2023HuatuoGPT-II, One-stage Training for Medical Adaption of LLMscited by 92
- 2025Persona Features Control Emergent Misalignmentcited by 86
6 more
- 2025Weird Generalization and Inductive Backdoors: New Ways to Corrupt LLMscited by 55
- 2025Overcoming Sparsity Artifacts in Crosscoders to Interpret Chat-Tuningcited by 34
- 2025Narrow Finetuning Leaves Clearly Readable Traces in Activation Differencescited by 28
- 2025Believe It or Not: How Deeply do LLMs Believe Implanted Facts?cited by 24
- 2025Open Character Training: Shaping the Persona of AI Assistants through Constitutional AIcited by 24
- 2025Towards eliciting latent knowledge from LLMs with mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 19
Built on by
Not cited yet.