Foundation-model post-training usually relies on human labels, preference data, stronger teachers, or executable verifiers. We study Unsupervised Post-Training (UPT): update-bearing adaptation on unlabeled inputs whose learning signal is derived from same-lineage model artifacts rather than an external oracle. We catalog 80 strict UPT methods and organize them by the object that supplies the update signal: a prediction statistic, a sample relation, a self-generated target, or an internal evaluator. Beyond inventory, we show how the choice of internal signal and task structure determines whether post-training improves the model or recursively amplifies error. An orthogonal Input Visibility × Update Persistence view maps deployment regimes and defines a unified framework for UPT selection and evaluation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Update-object taxonomy of Unsupervised Post-Training . Strict UPT methods are grouped by the internal update object. Dashed boxes denote boundary-adjacent methods that fail at least one strict UPT check.
Signal
Mechanism
Regime
Method
NLL
Ent.
Conf.
Geom./Rule
CPT
TTT
EM-min
EM-RL
State
Train
Test
LC
CPT-LM ( Ke et al., 2023 )
✓
✓
✓
Simple CPT ( Ibrahim et al., 2024 )
✓
✓
✓
LangAdapt CPT ( Elhady et al., 2025 )
✓
✓
✓
Stability-Gap CPT ( Guo et al., 2025 )
✓
✓
✓
ReplayAlign CPT ( Abbes et al., 2026 )
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Strict UPT methods in Family I (§ 3 ). Signal : NLL, entropy (Ent.), self-confidence (Conf.), or other geometric/rule-based statistic (Geom./Rule). Mechanism : continued pretraining (CPT), test-time training (TTT), entropy/confidence minimization (EM-min), entropy/confidence or other internal-statistic policy-gradient reward (EM-RL), sample-local state update (State). LC : long-context target. ‡ Family I/IV bridge case (§ 6 ).
Consensus signal
Regime
Method
Majority
Semantic
Self-
Path
Pairwise
Soft
Train
Test
Multimodal
vote
cluster
certainty
consist.
agreement
cluster
EMPO ( Zhang et al., 2025b )
✓
✓
Intuitor ( Zhao et al., 2026b )
✓
✓
CoVo ( Zhang et al., 2025a )
✓
✓
Co-rewarding ( Zhang et al., 2026b )
✓
✓
Table 2: Strict UPT methods in Family II (§ 4 ). Consensus signal : which multi-sample statistic over multiple internal samples drives the gradient. † marks methods where the consensus is the selection mask and a separate intrinsic term shapes advantages or tokens.
Generated target
Selection criterion
Regime
Method
Instr.
Rationale
Curric.
Pref.
Doc.
KB
Cycle
SC
Confid.
Maj.
Debate
MBR
Foresight
Reflect
Train
Test
Self-Tuning † ( Zhang et al., 2025c )
✓
✓
✓
KBAlign ( Zeng et al., 2025 )
✓
✓
✓
CYCLE-INSTRUCT † ( Shen et al., 2025 )
✓
✓
✓
Self-Improve ( Huang et al., 2023 )
✓
✓
✓
Quiet-STaR ( Zelikman et al., 2024 )
✓
✓
Table 3: Strict UPT methods in Family III (§ 5 ). Generated target : instruction/response (Instr.), rationale, curriculum (Curric.), or preference pair (Pref.). Selection criterion : document grounding (Doc.), knowledge-base grounding (KB), cycle consistency, self-consistency (SC), internal confidence (Confid.), majority vote (Maj.), multi-agent debate, minimum-Bayes risk (MBR), stepwise foresight (Foresight), self-reflection (Reflect). † marks a stage- or variant-qualified strict entry.
Method
Update
Issue addressed
Self-Rewarding LM ( Yuan et al., 2024 )
DPO
baseline self-judge
CREAM ( Wang et al., 2025c )
DPO
bias amplification
Meta-Rewarding ( Wu et al., 2024 )
DPO
judge saturation
Temporal SRLM ( Wang et al., 2025b )
DPO
gradient vanishing
CoNL ( Sui and Hooi, 2026 )
PG
critique-as-reward
RLME ( Rentschler and Roberts, 2026 )
PG
NL meta-judge
Table 4: Strict UPT methods in Family IV (§ 6 ). ‡ Family I/IV bridge case (discussed below).
Large language model post-training adapts pretrained models into more useful, reliable, and specialized assistants through supervised and preference-based learning.
Time series foundation models (TSFMs) have emerged as general-purpose models for time series analysis, but pretraining alone is often insufficient for reliable downstream deployment. Bridging this gap requires further intervention to handle domain shift, task heterogeneity, limited supervision, and computational constraints, which motivates post-training as a broad class of methods to adapt, augment, compose, calibrate, or specialize pretrained TSFMs for downstream tasks. In this work, we analyze TSFM post-training methods based on their locus of intervention in the prediction pipeline, yielding five categories: parameter adaptation, context augmentation, model composition, output processing and uncertainty control, and compression and specialization. Within each category, we study main representative methods and discuss their current limitations. We further identify future directions toward controlled adaptation, reliable context construction, uncertainty-aware model composition, calibrated output processing, and deployment-aware specialization. Overall, by providing a unifying framework for the emerging TSFM post-training landscape, this work aims to support future research to navigate the design space between a pretrained TSFM and its reliable downstream deployment.
Foundation models are typically trained in stages: pretraining, midtraining, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL), with changes in both data and learning algorithms. We show that this algorithmic separation is not fundamental. By deriving suitable RL objectives as maximum-likelihood fitting to model-generated target distributions, we place all of these stages under a single likelihood-based training algorithm, unified training. This perspective turns the foundation-model training lifecycle into a problem of choosing which data to train on, in what proportions, and when, with conventional staged training as a special case. We instantiate this framework in a unified training system that mixes static data and RL generations within a single trainer. Across controlled and real-world experiments, unified training improves the accuracy-compute tradeoff and task coverage while preserving broader capabilities, and provides a stronger starting point for continual learning. This work lays the groundwork for a unified science of foundation-model training, connecting mathematical principles, training infrastructure, and the development of model capabilities.
Yuda Song, Alvin Zhang, Fahim Tajwar +7
Carnegie Mellon University · Johns Hopkins University · Aurora Innovation
Source-free universal domain adaptation (SF-UniDA) adapts a pre-trained source model to an unlabeled target domain under both covariate and label shifts, without access to source data. However, existing SF-UniDA methods rely on inefficient techniques such as threshold tuning and clustering. Foundation models (FMs), known for their generalization and zero-shot capabilities, remain underexplored in SF-UniDA. In this paper, we propose a framework that leverages foundation models (LFM) for SF-UniDA. We use a vision-language model (VLM) to compute similarities between target samples and text labels, including those for unknown classes generated by prompting a large language model. The label shift type is determined by analyzing the coefficient of variation of a similarity-based sample-level score. Unknown samples are identified using a binary Gaussian mixture model fitted to another similarity-based metric. Under a consensus strategy, the pseudo-labels generated by the VLM are refined by the target model initialized with the pre-trained source model, integrating knowledge from both the source domain and foundation models. Finally, these refined pseudo-labels are used to train the target model. Extensive experiments across all possible label shifts and multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of our proposed LFM framework. Our code is available at https://github.com/iamjingli/LFM.
Jing Li, Pan Liu, Meng Zhao +7
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China · Engineering Research Center of Learning-Based Intelligent System, Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China +1