Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 30, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
When a language model is fine-tuned to follow instructions, or further pretrained on a new subject, it often gets worse at predicting standard web text. This is known as "forgetting." We ask whether this loss can be undone by simple, fixed adjustments to the model's final token predictions. Across 14 pairs of base and derived models, from 1B to 7B parameters, we fitted a fixed bonus or penalty for each token (a vocabulary bias), alone or together with a temperature. On text held out from correction fitting, the largest top-4K bias recovery estimate is under 10%, with loss conditional on the retained vocabulary. Combining the bias with a temperature recovers up to 36%. Models further pretrained on math lose the most and recover almost nothing. Finally, in a controlled simulation where a model is damaged at random, with no planted bias or temperature change, the bias-plus-temperature fix still recovers 29%. Most of the real-model loss increase stays out of reach of our restricted fits.