REVIEW 6 cited by
What Matters for Model Merging at Scale?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Model merging aims to combine multiple expert models into a more capable single model, offering benefits such as reduced storage and serving costs, improved generalization, and support for decentralized model development. Despite its promise, previous studies have primarily focused on merging a few small models. This leaves many unanswered questions about the effect of scaling model size and how it interplays with other key factors -- like the base model quality and number of expert models -- , to affect the merged model's performance. This work systematically evaluates the utility of model merging at scale, examining the impact of these different factors. We experiment with merging fully fine-tuned models using 4 popular merging methods -- Averaging, Task~Arithmetic, Dare, and TIES -- across model sizes ranging from 1B-64B parameters and merging up to 8 different expert models. We evaluate the merged models on both held-in tasks, i.e., the expert's training tasks, and zero-shot generalization to unseen held-out tasks. Our experiments provide several new insights about model merging at scale and the interplay between different factors. First, we find that merging is more effective when experts are created from strong base models, i.e., models with good zero-shot performance. Second, larger models facilitate easier merging. Third merging consistently improves generalization capabilities. Notably, when merging 8 large expert models, the merged models often generalize better compared to the multitask trained models. Fourth, we can better merge more expert models when working with larger models. Fifth, different merging methods behave very similarly at larger scales. Overall, our findings shed light on some interesting properties of model merging while also highlighting some limitations. We hope that this study will serve as a reference point on large-scale merging for upcoming research.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
A Model Merging Approach for Continual MLLM Unlearning
MCU merges one-shot unlearning LoRA adapters in a shared low-rank space with dependency reconfiguration to support continual multimodal unlearning.
-
Rethinking Heterogeneous LLM Merging: A Weighted Model Averaging Perspective
After truncating or expanding checkpoints to a shared shape, small-ratio weight averaging slightly improves average benchmark scores over strong Qwen sources, but headline gains are inflated by per-task best-ratio selection.
-
Exploring Sparse Adapters for Scalable Merging of Parameter Efficient Experts
Sparse adapters trained with max connection sensitivity outperform LoRA and full fine-tuning both alone and after merging 20 task experts, but still lag multitask training on unseen tasks.
-
Robust fine-tuning of speech recognition models via model merging: application to disordered speech
Merging multiple fine-tuned Whisper models reduces word error rate on dysarthric speech by 12-16% relative to standard fine-tuning, with gains on long audio and low-data settings.
-
The Avengers: A Simple Recipe for Uniting Smaller Language Models to Challenge Proprietary Giants
Clustering-based routing plus self-consistency voting among ten 7B open models reportedly outranks GPT-4.1 and GPT-4.5 on average over 15 diverse benchmarks.
-
Why Do More Experts Fail? A Theoretical Analysis of Model Merging
The paper claims to prove an upper bound and diminishing returns in model merging, but the proofs are not sound and the heavy-tailed claim is contradicted by its own equations.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.