PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Understanding Catastrophic Forgetting in Language Models via Implicit Inference

Suhas Kotha, Jacob Mitchell Springer, Aditi Raghunathan

transfer & meta learningimplicit inference in language modelsfine-tuningcatastrophic forgetting
85.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.32)
87.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±25 pct pts (from σ = 0.49)
84.90100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — Fine-tuning may be understood as changing how a model infers the task of the prompt, and this allows us to recover the pretrained capabilities of language models through conjugate prompting.

Abstract

We lack a systematic understanding of the effects of fine-tuning (via methods such as instruction-tuning or reinforcement learning from human feedback), particularly on tasks outside the narrow fine-tuning distribution. In a simplified scenario, we demonstrate that improving performance on tasks within the fine-tuning data distribution comes at the expense of capabilities on other tasks. We hypothesize that language models implicitly infer the task of the prompt and that fine-tuning skews this inference towards tasks in the fine-tuning distribution. To test this, we propose Conjugate Prompting, which artificially makes the task look farther from the fine-tuning distribution while requiring the same capability, and we find that this recovers some of the pretraining capabilities in our synthetic setup. Since real-world fine-tuning distributions are predominantly English, we apply conjugate prompting to recover pretrained capabilities in LLMs by simply translating the prompts to different languages. This allows us to recover in-context learning abilities lost via instruction tuning, natural reasoning capability lost during code fine-tuning, and, more concerningly, harmful content generation suppressed by safety fine-tuning in chatbots like ChatGPT.

Author context

Most prolific author: 7 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)