Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

From Memorization to Parameter Interference: How Overtraining Experts Harms Model Merging

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

arxiv 2506.14126 v2 pith:AFH25HAM submitted 2025-06-17 cs.LG cs.AI

From Memorization to Parameter Interference: How Overtraining Experts Harms Model Merging

classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords modelmergingmodelsfine-tunedfine-tuningperformanceassumptioncheckpoints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Modern deep learning is increasingly characterized by the use of open-weight foundation models that can be fine-tuned on specialized datasets. This has led to a proliferation of expert models and adapters, often shared via platforms like HuggingFace and AdapterHub. Model merging has recently emerged as an effective way to leverage these existing resources, enabling the composition of capabilities from different model checkpoints. A natural pipeline has thus formed to harness the benefits of transfer learning and amortize sunk training costs: models are pre-trained on general data, fine-tuned on specific tasks, and then multiple checkpoints are merged to obtain a more capable model. A prevailing assumption is that improvements at one stage of this pipeline propagate downstream, leading to gains at subsequent steps. In this work, we challenge that assumption by examining how expert fine-tuning affects model merging. We show that long fine-tuning of experts that optimizes for their individual performance leads to degraded merging performance across vision and language modalities, multiple model scales, and both fully fine-tuned and LoRA-adapted models. We trace this degradation to the memorization of a small set of difficult examples that dominate late fine-tuning steps. This causes negative parameter interference and encodes knowledge that is forgotten during merging. Finally, we demonstrate that task-dependent aggressive early stopping strategies can significantly improve model merging performance.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Can Model Merging Improve Aggregation in DiLoCo?

    cs.LG 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    IsoLoCo, isotropic outer aggregation with Nesterov momentum, outperforms DiLoCo on FLOP-matched LLM pre-training, with the gap widening as the number of workers increases.

  2. Are we Merging the Right Models? Impact of Expert Training Duration on Model Merging for LLMs

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The optimal training duration for expert models before merging depends on the merging method; sparsification-based merging benefits from overtrained experts.

  3. Double Preconditioning (DoPr): Optimization for Test-Time Performance, not Validation Loss

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Double preconditioning (DoPr) improves downstream task performance in test-time feedback settings without consistent gains in validation loss.

  4. Are we Merging the Right Models? Impact of Expert Training Duration on Model Merging for LLMs

    cs.LG 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.5

    Sparsification-based model merging peaks well past expert validation optima, while averaging degrades with overtraining; duration and merge method must be chosen jointly.