aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that the final segment of pretraining data acts as a latent imprint determining how models respond to subsequent alignment techniques like preference optimization or RLHF. Even when checkpoints appear functionally identical after supervised fine-tuning, their divergent trajectories during post-training demonstrate that current evaluation metrics fail to capture these critical differences in safety and capability retention. For practitioners selecting base models for deployment, this implies a need to scrutinize the very last training window rather than relying solely on standard benchmark scores before initiating alignment phases.
Similar Models Learn Differently: Final-Window Pretraining Shapes Post-Training Beyond SFT
arXiv:2607.25063v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Developers judge a model checkpoint by how it behaves. After supervised fine-tuning (SFT), two checkpoints that perform about the same across relevant benchmarks are treated as interchangeable, equally ready for the next alignment stage, typically preference optimization. We ask whether this judgment misses a pretraining imprint: a difference that no post-SFT benchmark reveals, yet that decides how each checkpoint responds to further training. To find out, we run a controlled experiment on the final window of pretraining, the last data trained on before instruction tuning. Six branches fork from one partially pretrained checkpoint and differ only in this window: 500 million tokens, 0.1% to 1% of the tokens that precede it. Each branch trains its window on a single data source: generic web text, filtered web text, normative discourse, safety text, mathematical text, or synthetic educational text. SFT and post-training are then identical. After SFT the branches behave near-identically, within about one point on instruction following, refusal, and capability, yet the same post-training carries them to very different endpoints, under both a direct preference optimization update and a reinforcement learning update with a verifiable reward. We measure this deviation through refusal of harmful requests: when post-training begins the safety text branch refuses no more than the web text branch, yet by the end it has lost far less of its refusal. The other four branches gain little or no protection, so the effect is selective to what the window contained. The protection requires the safety text to arrive last rather than earlier in pretraining, and it reproduces on a second model family. What a model is pretrained on last shapes how it reacts to alignment. Therefore, a checkpoint should not be evaluated by its post-SFT behavior alone, and what it was trained on last should be reported with it.
Abstract:Developers judge a model checkpoint by how it behaves. After supervised fine-tuning (SFT), two checkpoints that perform about the same across relevant benchmarks are treated as interchangeable, equally ready for the next alignment stage, typically preference optimization. We ask whether this judgment misses a pretraining imprint: a difference that no post-SFT benchmark reveals, yet that decides how each checkpoint responds to further training. To find out, we run a controlled experiment on the final window of pretraining, the last data trained on before instruction tuning. Six branches fork from one partially pretrained checkpoint and differ only in this window: 500 million tokens, 0.1% to 1% of the tokens that precede it. Each branch trains its window on a single data source: generic web text, filtered web text, normative discourse, safety text, mathematical text, or synthetic educational text. SFT and post-training are then identical. After SFT the branches behave near-identically, within about one point on instruction following, refusal, and capability, yet the same post-training carries them to very different endpoints, under both a direct preference optimization update and a reinforcement learning update with a verifiable reward. We measure this deviation through refusal of harmful requests: when post-training begins the safety text branch refuses no more than the web text branch, yet by the end it has lost far less of its refusal. The other four branches gain little or no protection, so the effect is selective to what the window contained. The protection requires the safety text to arrive last rather than earlier in pretraining, and it reproduces on a second model family. What a model is pretrained on last shapes how it reacts to alignment. Therefore, a checkpoint should not be evaluated by its post-SFT behavior alone, and what it was trained on last should be reported with it.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.25063 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.25063v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.25063 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 · 393 words
Related coverage
Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · Jul 21, 2026
Can we change an AI model’s architecture without retraining it from scratch?
Amazon Science · Oct 12, 2026
How might continual learning affect safety and alignment?
LessWrong · Jun 13, 2026
Adaptive Parallel Reasoning: The Next Paradigm in Efficient Inference Scaling
BAIR Blog · May 8, 2026