Is Convergence Inevitable? Tracing Output Homogeneity Back to Base Models

Post-training (via supervised fine-tuning) improves instruction-following, but often induces semantic mode collapse by biasing models toward low-entropy fine-tuning data at the expense of the high-entropy pretraining distribution. Crucially, we find this trade-off worsens with scale. To close this semantic diversity gap, we propose annotation-anchored training, a principled method that enables models to adopt the preference-following behaviors of post-training without sacrificing the inherent diversity of pretraining. Our approach is simple: we pretrain on documents paired with semantic annotations, inducing a rich annotation distribution that reflects the full breadth of pretraining data, and we preserve this distribution during post-training. This lets us sample diverse annotations at inference time and use them as anchors to guide generation, effectively transferring pretraining's semantic richness into post-trained models. We find that models trained with annotation-anchored training can attain $6 \times$ less diversity collapse than models trained with SFT, and improve with scale.

Final outputs hide when a checkpoint commits to its next-token prediction. We introduce the convergence gap, a model-diffing diagnostic that decodes each layer's next-token distribution and measures its distance to the model's own final distribution. Across six paired pretrained and instruction-tuned checkpoints in native prompting regimes, instruction-tuned checkpoints remain farther from their final predictions later into the stack. The effect persists under endpoint-matched raw and tuned readouts, endpoint-free same-history checks, and fixed-history template replay. Matched-prefix interventions identify late MLP windows as the largest tested leverage point: late IT grafts into PT hosts increase late KL by +0.34 nats, while PT-late swaps into IT hosts reduce it by -0.51 nats; matched random late perturbations give only +0.003 versus +0.327 for the true late graft. A preselected Gemma case study provides behavior-facing plausibility for the same late swap, without serving as a benchmark claim. These results identify a robust predictiondynamics signature of post-training: released instruction-following checkpoints tend to settle later, and late MLP computation is the strongest tested bidirectional handle on that delay under matched histories.

Post-trained language models produce less varied outputs than their base counterparts. This output diversity collapse undermines inference-time scaling methods that rely on varied samples, and risks homogenizing model outputs on creative and value-laden tasks. Prior work attributes collapse to specific post-training methods, without separating the role of training data composition from the method, or the generation format from the model weights. We trace output diversity through three parallel post-training lineages of Olmo 3, Think (chain-of-thought distillation), Instruct (broad multi-source data), and RL-Zero, across 15 tasks and four text diversity metrics. We find that the location of collapse co-varies with data composition: the Think lineage loses most semantic diversity at supervised fine-tuning, and the effect of DPO is larger in Instruct than in Think. Suppressing chain-of-thought reasoning at inference in Think models drops accuracy on hard tasks, yet leaves answer-level diversity unchanged, showing that the collapse is embedded in the model weights by training data, not imposed by the generation format. Decomposing diversity loss on six verifiable tasks into a quality-control component (removal of incorrect outputs) and a residual component (genuine narrowing among correct outputs) reveals that the split is task-dependent, and Think models retain more correct-answer diversity than Instruct despite collapsing more in aggregate. Our results indicate that diversity collapse is determined during training by data composition and cannot be addressed at inference time alone.