aiqbench analysis
This research dissects how post-training processes alter the fate of pre-trained information, distinguishing between erasure, rerouting, and rescaling within a model's belief state. The study reveals that without specific anchoring mechanisms, optimization can decouple representations from decision-making even when they remain theoretically recoverable. These findings offer critical theoretical clarity on preserving useful knowledge during fine-tuning and compression strategies in large language models.
Erased, Rerouted, or Rescaled? Post-Training and the Causal Quotient of a Language Model's Belief State
arXiv:2610.05292v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What happens to information a pretrained model already encodes when post-training no longer rewards using it? The common language of representation compression conflates three fates: information may be erased, rerouted away from the decision while still represented, or rescaled to occupy less variance while still represented and used. We make these fates identifiable in models whose pretraining recovers Bayesian belief states. A reward that reads only a coarse function of the hidden state defines an exact reward-null kernel. The kernel lets us separately measure whether the information remains recoverable, whether decisions causally depend on it, and how much activation variance it occupies. Theory says what is protected: KL-anchored reinforcement learning preserves the reference policy's log-odds among equally rewarded outputs, supervised and unanchored objectives carry no such constraint, and spectral compression implies neither erasure nor loss of use. In controlled worlds, post-training mostly reroutes or rescales reward-null information and leaves it decodable. Without an anchor decisions can stop using it although the representation survives, and with one they keep using it. Erasure appears only under prolonged weight decay, for distinctions that neither reward nor next-token prediction can see. Open language models show the same dissociation: in-context belief geometry stays decodable under late-layer spectral compression, and within-class behavior depends on the anchor. Post-training thus selects a causal quotient of the pretrained belief state: the reward defines decision-equivalence, the anchor and the state update protect part of what it ignores, and optimization decides whether the rest is erased, rerouted, or rescaled.
Title:Erased, Rerouted, or Rescaled? Post-Training and the Causal Quotient of a Language Model's Belief State
Abstract:What happens to information a pretrained model already encodes when post-training no longer rewards using it? The common language of representation compression conflates three fates: information may be erased, rerouted away from the decision while still represented, or rescaled to occupy less variance while still represented and used. We make these fates identifiable in models whose pretraining recovers Bayesian belief states. A reward that reads only a coarse function of the hidden state defines an exact reward-null kernel. The kernel lets us separately measure whether the information remains recoverable, whether decisions causally depend on it, and how much activation variance it occupies. Theory says what is protected: KL-anchored reinforcement learning preserves the reference policy's log-odds among equally rewarded outputs, supervised and unanchored objectives carry no such constraint, and spectral compression implies neither erasure nor loss of use. In controlled worlds, post-training mostly reroutes or rescales reward-null information and leaves it decodable. Without an anchor decisions can stop using it although the representation survives, and with one they keep using it. Erasure appears only under prolonged weight decay, for distinctions that neither reward nor next-token prediction can see. Open language models show the same dissociation: in-context belief geometry stays decodable under late-layer spectral compression, and within-class behavior depends on the anchor. Post-training thus selects a causal quotient of the pretrained belief state: the reward defines decision-equivalence, the anchor and the state update protect part of what it ignores, and optimization decides whether the rest is erased, rerouted, or rescaled.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.05292 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.05292v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.05292 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 357 words
Related coverage
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · Aug 26, 2026
Does DiffusionGemma do latent reasoning?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 16, 2026
Measuring the Depth of LLM Unlearning via Activation Patching
arXiv · Sep 1, 2026