Ziqian Zhong

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, \textit{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.

Mechanistic interpretability is often motivated for alignment auditing, where a model's verbal explanations can be absent, incomplete, or misleading. Yet many evaluations do not control whether black-box prompting alone can recover the target behavior, so apparent gains from white-box tools may reflect elicitation rather than internal signal; we call this the *elicitation confounder*. We introduce Pando, a model-organism benchmark that breaks this confound via an *explanation axis*: models are trained to produce either faithful explanations of the true rule, no explanation, or confident but unfaithful explanations of a disjoint distractor rule. Across 720 finetuned models implementing hidden decision-tree rules, agents predict held-out model decisions from $10$ labeled query--response pairs, optionally augmented with one interpretability tool output. When explanations are faithful, black-box elicitation matches or exceeds all white-box methods; when explanations are absent or misleading, gradient-based attribution improves accuracy by 3--5 percentage points, and relevance patching, RelP, gives the largest gains, while logit lens, sparse autoencoders, and circuit tracing provide no reliable benefit. Variance decomposition suggests gradients track *decision computation*, which fields causally drive the output, whereas other readouts are dominated by *task representation*, biases toward field identity and value. We release all models, code, and evaluation infrastructure.