A Pipeline to Assess Merging Methods via Behavior and Internals
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Merging methods combine the weights of multiple language models (LMs) to leverage their capacities, such as for domain adaptation. While existing studies investigate merged models from a solely behavioral perspective, we offer the first comprehensive view by assessing and connecting their behavior and internals. We present a novel evaluation pipeline that first merges multiple parent LMs, and then evaluates the merged models in comparison to the initial ones based on their behavior on downstream tasks, like MMLU, and the internal encoded linguistic competence. We showcase this pipeline by assessing the merging of instruction fine-tuned with math- and code-adapted LMs from the Qwen2.5 family. Our results show that merging methods impacts behavior and internals differently. While the performance of merged models is typically between that of the two parent models, their encoded information about linguistic phenomena, particularly in morphology and syntax, can surpass the parent models. Moreover, we find weak ranking correlation between this behavior and internal evaluation. With our pipeline and initial results, we emphasize the need for more comprehensive evaluations of model merging methods to gain a faithful understanding of their capabilities and reliability, beyond potential superficial behavioral advances.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2025.
Builds on
17 of 30 references.
References · 17
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
- 2022Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference timecited by 1,366
- 2022Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
- 2023Language Models are Super Mario: Absorbing Abilities from Homologous Models as a Free Lunchcited by 679
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 622
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
- 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 452
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
5 more
- 2024Arcee's MergeKit: A Toolkit for Merging Large Language Modelscited by 189
- 2024Fine-tuning large language models for domain adaptation: Exploration of training strategies, scaling, model merging and synergistic capabilitiescited by 67
- 2024Holmes: A Benchmark to Assess the Linguistic Competence of Language Modelscited by 26
- 2024Unlocking the Potential of Model Merging for Low-Resource Languagescited by 19
- 2025Aligned Probing: Relating Toxic Behavior and Model Internalscited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.