Similar Models Learn Differently: Final-Window Pretraining Shapes Post-Training Beyond SFT

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.

Metric-Aware Hybrid Forecasting for the CTF4Science Lorenz Challenge

We describe our approach to the CTF4Science Lorenz challenge, a benchmark that mixes short-horizon forecasting, long-time distribution matching, and trajectory reconstruction across nine task pairs. The key discovery is that no single model family dominated all metrics. Instead, we built a metric-aware hybrid system that assigned a different predictor to each metric family: (1) synthetic-pretrained denoisers for full-trajectory reconstruction, (2) Lorenz ODE fitting and trajectory shooting for the first 20 forecast steps, and (3) histogram-tail substitution using synthetic Lorenz libraries for long-time evaluation. A representative mature submission from this system family scored 83.83551 on the public leaderboard, and a small follow-up stack of the same ideas reached 83.85529. We focus on the cleaner intermediate system because it captures the full method while remaining simple enough to reproduce and analyze, while the final submission can be understood as a conservative extension of the same backbone.