Hongzhe Du

Hongzhe Du, Weikai Li, Min Cai et al.

Post-training is essential for the success of large language models (LLMs), transforming pre-trained base models into more useful and aligned post-trained models. While plenty of works have studied post-training algorithms and evaluated post-training models by their outputs, it remains understudied how post-training reshapes LLMs internally. In this paper, we compare base and post-trained LLMs mechanistically from four perspectives to better understand post-training effects. Our findings across model families and datasets reveal that: (1) Post-training does not change the factual knowledge storage locations, and it adapts knowledge representations from the base model while developing new knowledge representations; (2) Both truthfulness and refusal can be represented by vectors in the hidden representation space. The truthfulness direction is highly similar between the base and post-trained model, and it is effectively transferable for interventions; (3) The refusal direction is different between the base and post-trained models, and it shows limited forward transferability; (4) Differences in confidence between the base and post-trained models cannot be attributed to entropy neurons. Our study provides insights into the fundamental mechanisms preserved and altered during post-training, facilitates downstream tasks like model steering, and could potentially benefit future research in interpretability and LLM post-training. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/HZD01/post-training-mechanistic-analysis.

Shichang Zhang, Hongzhe Du, Jiaqi W. Ma et al.

Modern AI systems are typically developed through multiple stages-pretraining, fine-tuning rounds, and subsequent adaptation or alignment, where each stage builds on the previous ones and updates the model in distinct ways. This raises a critical question of accountability: when a deployed model succeeds or fails, which stage is responsible, and to what extent? We pose the accountability attribution problem for tracing model behavior back to specific stages of the model development process. To address this challenge, we propose a general framework that answers counterfactual questions about stage effects: how would the model's behavior have changed if the updates from a particular stage had not occurred? Within this framework, we introduce estimators that efficiently quantify stage effects without retraining the model, accounting for both the data and key aspects of model optimization dynamics, including learning rate schedules, momentum, and weight decay. We demonstrate that our approach successfully quantifies the accountability of each stage to the model's behavior. Based on the attribution results, our method can identify and remove spurious correlations learned during image classification and text toxicity detection tasks that were developed across multiple stages. Our approach provides a practical tool for model analysis and represents a significant step toward more accountable AI development.