Do Instruction-Tuned Models Always Perform Better Than Base Models? Evidence from Math and Domain-Shifted Benchmarks

Instruction finetuning is standard practice for improving LLM performance, yet it remains unclear whether it enhances reasoning or merely induces surface-level pattern matching. We investigate this by evaluating base and instruction-tuned models on standard math benchmarks, structurally perturbed variants, and domain-shifted tasks.

Our analysis highlights two key (often overlooked) limitations of instruction tuning. First, the performance advantage is unstable and depends heavily on evaluation settings.

In zero-shot CoT settings on GSM8K, base models consistently outperform instruction-tuned variants, with drops as high as 32.67% (Llama3-70B). Instruction-tuned models only match or exceed this performance when provided with few-shot exemplars, suggesting a reliance on specific prompting patterns rather than intrinsic reasoning.

Second, tuning gains are brittle under distribution shift. Our results show that base models surpass instruction-tuned variants on the domain-specific MedCalc benchmark.

Additionally, instruction-tuned models show sharp declines on perturbed datasets, indicating sensitivity to prompt structure over robust reasoning.