Models
Failure Tempest 1All modelsStatus
Research
OverviewAPI fusionEvaluation
Developers
DocumentationConsoleChangelog
Company
PricingEnterpriseAboutSecurityContact
Account
Sign inCreate account
Home/Research/Weight merging
Track CIn the labNothing released

Many fine-tunes, one set of weights.

Fine-tunes of the same base model share a coordinate system. That makes it possible to combine what each one learned without training a new model from scratch. The hard part is deciding what to do when they pull in opposite directions.

Methods we study

From averaging to conflict resolution.

Baseline

Linear averaging

Average the weights of several fine-tunes, optionally with per-model coefficients. Simple, and a surprisingly strong baseline when the fine-tunes stay close to their base.

Vectors

Task arithmetic

Subtract the base to get a task vector for each fine-tune, scale it, and add the sum back. Merging becomes editing directions rather than averaging endpoints.

Conflicts

Sign and sparsity resolution

TIES- and DARE-style methods trim small changes, drop or rescale at random, and elect a sign per parameter so opposing updates do not cancel out.

The problem, plainly

Two fine-tunes of one base each move millions of parameters. Most moves are tiny and carry little. A few are large and carry the skill. When the two fine-tunes move the same parameter in opposite directions, a plain average lands near zero, and both skills lose that piece.

Task vectors

Write each fine-tune as base + delta. The delta, or task vector, is what the fine-tune learned. Merging becomes a question about deltas: which to keep, how much of each, and what to do where they disagree.

Trimming

Many entries in a delta are noise. Keeping only the largest fraction of each delta reduces interference between models before anything is combined.

Electing a sign

For each parameter, the merge picks the direction with the most total weight behind it, and keeps only the deltas that agree with it. Updates that disagree are dropped for that parameter rather than averaged into nothing.

Dropping and rescaling

Randomly dropping a share of each delta and rescaling the remainder can preserve a fine-tune's behaviour while leaving more room for others. It is a cheap way to make deltas sparser before they meet.

Why only one base

These methods rely on every model sharing the same parameter layout and starting point. Fine-tunes of different bases do not line up parameter for parameter. Merging across families is what expert transplant is for.

How we test a merge

A merge has to beat its parents.

Against each parent

A merge is measured on each parent's own specialty. If it loses a parent's skill, that is a loss and it is reported.

Against the base

General ability must not fall below the base. A merge that trades breadth for one narrow gain is noted as such.

Against simple averaging

Any clever method has to beat a plain average. If it does not, the plain average is the result.

Status

Where it stands.

MethodStatusResult
Linear averagingIn the lab—
Task arithmeticIn the lab—
TIES-style trim and sign electionIn the lab—
DARE-style drop and rescaleIn the lab—
Released merged modelNothing released—

See how we measure.

Every merge is scored the same way, and every score stays blank until we have run it ourselves.