A striking method-dependent pattern is revealed: simple averaging degrades sharply with overfitting, while sparsification-based methods achieve their best performance well past the validation optimum, suggesting that training duration and merging method should be chosen jointly rather than independently.
Abstract
Multi-task model merging combines separately trained expert models into a single model that handles all tasks without co-training. Standard practice merges experts at their optimal validation loss. We challenge this convention by systematically studying how training duration of domain experts affects the quality of the merged model. We fine-tune experts on five domains (Math, Code, Instruction Following, Multilingual, and Safety) across three model sizes (Qwen 3.5 0.8B, 2B, and 4B), saving checkpoints from 25% to 500% of the optimal training steps and evaluating five merging methods at each duration. Our findings reveal a striking method-dependent pattern: simple averaging degrades sharply with overfitting, while sparsification-based methods achieve their best performance well past the validation optimum. We formalize this through bias-variance decomposition analysis, drawing a parallel to random forests where averaging benefits from high-variance individual learners. These results suggest that training duration and merging method should be chosen jointly rather than independently.
Model merging aims to combine multiple domain-specialized experts trained from a shared foundation model into a single multi-task model. Existing approaches largely focus on improving the merging procedure itself and typically assume experts obtained through full-parameter fine-tuning. In this work, we revisit expert training for model merging. We first show that prompt-based adaptation provides a strong baseline: independently learned prompts can be exploited across tasks while keeping the backbone fixed, avoiding the interference introduced by weight merging. Building on this observation, we introduce Dual-Tuned Experts (DTEs), a two-stage training strategy that first learns prompts and then fine-tunes the vision encoder. This reduces the magnitude of task-specific parameter updates and produces experts with higher merge compatibility. Experiments across multiple CLIP architectures, full fine-tuning, and LoRA experts show that DTEs consistently improve merged performance of standard merging approaches and remain effective even when combining heterogeneous sets of experts.
Christos Georgakilas, Aniello Panariello, Samir El Karrat Moreno et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
The strongest open-weight coding models are mixture-of-experts (MoE) networks: most of their size comes from large pools of"expert"subnetworks, of which only a few act on any token. That pool is why these models do not fit on the machines most developers own, yet for a user who only wants coding help, most experts encode abilities that will never be invoked. We ask how many experts can be removed, and which, by pruning two recent open-weight MoE models from different families (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and Gemma-4-26B-A4B) under five selection strategies, judged the way a user would: by whether the model still writes correct code. Half the experts can be removed from either model with no statistically detectable loss on the primary code benchmark, and the damage lands almost entirely on abilities outside coding, the intended trade. But the winning strategy flips between the two models, so a recipe validated on one family cannot be assumed to work on another. We further show that perplexity, the metric much of the pruning literature leans on, can rate a broken model above an intact one; that a lightweight fine-tune recovers about half of what aggressive pruning loses; and that against quantizing the full model to the same memory, pruning wins only where quantization would have to drop below 3 bits per weight. Five attempts to overturn that crossover, with failure criteria fixed in advance (better calibration, guarded selection, causal expert importance, failure attribution, and an agentic evaluation letting each model repair its failures from execution feedback), all leave it standing; the last shows single-shot benchmarks overstate compression penalties broadly, as one repair turn erases the 2-bit quantization penalty entirely. Expert pruning works, but it demands per-model validation on the task the model will actually serve.
Despite their strong performance, large language models remain highly sensitive to prompt formulation. Prior work addresses this through refined data construction or through dedicated robustness objectives. We reproduce and compare these strategies under controlled conditions, and measure how effective they are in addressing models'prompt sensitivity. We find the current robustness fine-tuning methods improve over standard fine-tuning and in-context learning, but the best-to-worst prompt gap remains as high as 40-57% of performance. Moreover, the recent robustness-enhancing methods we test - CoIN for contrastive alignment and PPCL for consistency regularization - often fail to outperform the simplest data construction strategy: training on one template per batch. Our diagnostics explain these results. The auxiliary objectives move the quantity they penalize, but do not generalize beyond it. Additionally, data construction strategies differ due to the conflicting signs of per-template gradients on 57-64% of parameters. Thus, batches that mix formulations force the optimizer to reconcile competing updates instead of finding a shared, prompt-agnostic one.
This work proposes a measure of training data influence that does not require selecting a downstream task or validation set as the attribution target, and defines an example's influence by how much its gradient update reduces the squared distance to the final parameters of a given pretraining run.
Yuto Nishida, Hirokazu Kiyomaru, Yusuke Oda et al.· 0 citations
The Mutual Reinforcement Effect (MRE) asks whether a fine, span-level and a coarse, document-level task help each other when one model handles both. We test it in multimodal document understanding on three corpora, two of receipts and one of scanned business forms, comparing single-task, joint and conditioned training, which puts one granularity's gold output in the other's prompt during training only. We build Doc-MRE, an annotation layer pairing gold field extraction (point) with four document-level facets (line), from a three-judge LLM committee under a pre-registration, validated by blind re-annotation. One predicate, fixed in advance: at a shared recipe, a regime reinforces if it beats the matched single-task model on both granularities. Mixed joint training, the arrangement prior MRE work assumes, reinforces on no corpus at the main scale: it is below both single-task models on CORD and trades one granularity for the other on the two others, as single-task tuning does. Conditioned training reinforces on two of the three, CORD (+0.5 point, +4.8 line) and the forms corpus (+7.2 point, +11.0 line), resolvably on the coarse side and directionally on the fine one, and trades on WildReceipt; at that recipe no alternative measurably beats it on either side anywhere. Two byte-identical-prompt controls separate content from format: shuffled conditioning destroys the coarse-side skill but costs the fine side far less, and a neutral-content control reproduces the whole fine-side gain on WildReceipt, which is therefore prompt structure but buys nothing resolvable on the other two. On the forms corpus conditioning buys collapse avoidance: mixed training and the neutral control both assign the majority semantic label to all 50 test documents; only conditioning recovers the gold distribution. Probes find the information decodable under every regime with no resolvable increase under conditioning.
Chengguang Gan, Yun-Hao Liang, Hanjun Wei et al.· 0 citations
Treating supervision format as a first-class hyperparameter for multi-task reasoning SFT in large language models—at least in this benchmark-and-model setting—rather than a mere rendering detail is supported.
Nhat Thanh Vu, M. Rashid, Fariza Sabrina· Electronics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
