Can Training Logs Make Model Comparisons More Precise?

Offline evaluation of language models from usage logs is biased when model choice is confounded: the same user-side factors that influence which model is used can also influence how its output is judged, so raw comparisons of logged scores mix self-selected populations rather than estimating a common quantity of interest. A small randomized experiment can break this bias by overriding model choice, but in practice such experiments are scarce and costly. We study a three-source design that combines a large confounded observational log (OBS) for scale, a small randomized experiment (EXP) for unconfounded scoring, and an offline simulator (SIM) that replays candidate models on cached contexts. Our main result is an identification theorem showing that the randomized experiment and the simulator are together enough to recover causal model values; the observational log enters only afterward, to reduce estimation error rather than to make the causal comparison valid. Six estimator families are evaluated in a controlled semi-synthetic validation and in two real-task cached benchmarks for summarization and coding. No family dominates every regime; relative performance depends on the amount of unbiased EXP supervision and on how closely the target reward aligns with OBS-derived structure.

Continual Learning (CL) is a practical paradigm to utilize power of deep pre-trained neural networks, but which pre-trained model has a better ability to balance ``Plasticity-Stability", deserving to be chosen? The logit shift serves as a natural proxy because it represents the logit shift in CL scenarios. However, obtaining the logit shift requires huge computational cost, which hinders large-scale model selection. Existing theoretical analyses fail to offer an efficient alternative because of the assumption of uniform hidden layer widths, which ignores the structural heterogeneity (variable width and depth) of real-world architectures. This raises a critical question: what theoretically relationship can be identified between heterogeneous architecture and logit shift on prior tasks (that the model has been trained on)? To answer the question, we decouple logit shift into architecture dependency and data dependency to establish our framework, which reveals that the combination of two dependency, defined as Architecture-driven Shift (ADS), that can capture the logit shift tendency well computable with few data samples. Specifically, for a well-optimized model on prior tasks, higher ADS is associated with a larger logit shift after training on the current task, which derived based on three mechanistic components: (1) spectral norm scaling of weight matrix gradients with layer width, (2) the optimization path length of the new task, and (3) the asymptotic task conflict in wide networks. Extensive empirical results across more than 175 diverse architectures demonstrate a strong monotonic correlation (the weakest Spearman's $r_s=0.731$) between ADS and logit shift. Practically, we demonstrate that ADS can serve as a lightweight proxy of the expected calibration error, which is a widely used metric for reliable CL model selection, on three datasets across six scenarios.

The "alignment tax" of post-training is typically framed as a drop in task accuracy. We show it also involves a severe loss of calibration, making models overconfident, less reliable, and model outputs less diverse. We show that this trade-off can be navigated effectively via a simple post-hoc intervention: interpolating between a model's weights before and after alignment. Crucially, this is not a strict trade-off. We find that the process consistently reveals Pareto-optimal interpolations - models that improve accuracy beyond both parents while substantially recovering the calibration lost during alignment. Our work demonstrates that simple model merging provides a computationally efficient method for mitigating the full scope of the alignment tax, yielding models that are more capable and more reliable.