A Controlled Counterexample to Strong Proxy-Based Explanations of OOD Performance: in a Fixed Pretraining-and-Probing Setup

Progress in language model development is often driven by comparative decisions: which architecture to adopt, which pretraining corpus to use, or which training recipe to apply. Making these decisions well requires reliable performance forecasts, yet the two commonly used signals are fundamentally limited. Cross-entropy loss is poorly aligned with downstream capabilities, and direct downstream evaluation is expensive, sparse, and often uninformative at early training stages. Instead, we propose to construct proxy metrics by aggregating token-level statistics, such as entropy, top-k accuracy, and expert token rank, from a candidate model's next token distribution over expert-written solutions. Across three settings, our proxies consistently outperform loss- and compute-based baselines: 1) For cross-family model selection, they rank a heterogeneous population of reasoning models with mean Spearman Rho = 0.81 (vs. Rho = 0.36 for cross-entropy loss); 2) For pretraining data selection, they reliably rank 25 candidate corpora for a target model at roughly $10{,}000\times$ less compute than direct evaluation, pushing the Pareto frontier beyond existing methods; and 3) for training-time forecasting, they extrapolate downstream accuracy across an $18\times$ compute horizon with roughly half the error of existing alternatives. Together, these results suggest that expert trajectories are a broadly useful source of signal for assessing model capabilities, enabling reliable performance forecasting throughout the model development life cycle.

Recent work has promoted task-aware layer pruning as a way to improve model performance on particular tasks, as shown by TALE. In this paper, we investigate when such improvements occur and why. We show first that, across controlled polynomial regression tasks and large language models, such pruning yields no benefit on in-distribution (ID) data but consistently improves out-of-distribution (OOD) accuracy. We further show empirically that OOD inputs induce layerwise norm and pairwise-distance profiles that deviate from the corresponding ID profiles. This leads to a geometric explanation of task-aware pruning: each task induces a task-adapted geometry, characterized empirically by the representation profiles observed on ID inputs. OOD inputs can introduce a distorted version of the task-adapted geometry. Task-aware pruning identifies layers that create or amplify this distortion; by removing them, it shifts OOD representational norms and pairwise distances toward those observed on the adapted distribution. This realigns OOD inputs with the model's task-adapted geometry and improves performance. We provide causal evidence through controlled distribution shifts and residual-scaling interventions, and demonstrate consistent behavior across model scales.

Evaluation scores are often validated by their agreement with inexpensive proxy labels. When the score and the proxy are computed from the same text span, however, that agreement can arise from surface evidence the two share rather than from the semantic construct the proxy is meant to represent. We make the distinction explicit by declaring the score, its span, the proxy and the target construct as a validation contract, then re-evaluating that proxy rule strictly outside the scored span. In a controlled HotpotQA correctness experiment varying only the shared text boundary, the score agrees with its proxy far better than with correctness at a 50-character prefix: the gap is +0.184, collapsing to at most +0.045 from 120 characters onward. At that short prefix the score still predicts whether the answer string appears later (AUC 0.634) while an equivalence test places its agreement with correctness at chance, so the reported proxy agreement does not establish that the score ranks correctness. On OR-Bench, suppressing each model's recurring opening templates removes most of the score's association with the refusal proxy, while matched-volume deletion removes almost none and construct agreement stays at chance. Only three of eleven external contracts support the off-span control, and none of the routing studies we sampled released the generations it needs. We therefore ask that a proxy-based validation claim declare the span each label is read from, report the construct agreement beside the proxy agreement, and release the generations that let the proxy be re-read off the scored span.