Day 44: Continued Pretrain vs Instruct Tune vs Adapters

Day 44: Continued Pretrain vs Instruct Tune vs Adapters

Not every problem needs a full SFT run. Continued pretraining teaches domain tokens; instruct tuning teaches tasks; adapters give cheap specialization. Day 44 picks the cheapest lever that moves the metric.

⚡ TL;DR: CPT for jargon-heavy corpora; SFT for task format; LoRA for multi-tenant specialists. Measure lift per GPU-hour. Always re-check forgetting (Day 45).

Lever Teaches Cost Risk
CPT domain distribution high forgetting
Instruct/SFT task specs medium overfit style
Adapters/LoRA specialist behavior low routing complexity
Prompt+RAG facts lowest context limits
experiments = [
  {"lever": "lora", "hours": 4, "metric": "sdk_exact_api", "hyp_lift": 0.05},
  {"lever": "sft", "hours": 20, "metric": "sdk_exact_api", "hyp_lift": 0.08},
  {"lever": "cpt", "hours": 80, "metric": "sdk_exact_api", "hyp_lift": 0.03},
]
❌ Jump to full CPT because a blog said "domain adaptation"

Sequence: freeze eval → try LoRA → consider CPT only if tokenization/jargon is the bottleneck → always run forgetting checks.

Production checklist

  • [ ] Lever choice + hypothesized lift recorded
  • [ ] GPU/Bedrock hours budgeted
  • [ ] Same eval for all levers
  • [ ] Adapter registry versioned
  • [ ] Kill criteria if lift < cost threshold
  • [ ] Multi-tenant adapter isolation reviewed

Series navigation

← Day 43 · Day 45 →

Last updated September 11, 2026


Discover more from CheatCoders

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply