How does the optimizer implicitly bias the model merging loss landscape?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Model merging combines independent solutions with different capabilities into a single one while maintaining the same inference cost. Two popular approaches are linear interpolation, which simply averages multiple model weights, and task arithmetic, which combines task vectors obtained by the difference between finetuned and base models. While useful in practice, what properties make merging effective are poorly understood. This paper explores how the optimization dynamics affect the loss landscape geometry and its impact on merging success. We show that a single quantity -- the effective noise scale -- unifies the impact of different optimizer components on model merging. Across architectures and datasets, merging success is a non-monotonic function of the effective noise scale, with a distinct optimum. Decomposing this quantity, we find that larger learning rates, stronger weight decay, smaller batch sizes, and data augmentation all independently modulate the effective noise scale and exhibit the same qualitative trend. Unlike prior work connecting optimizer noise to the flatness or generalization of individual minima, we show that it also affects the global loss landscape, predicting when independently trained solutions can be successfully merged. Our findings broaden the understanding of how optimization shapes the loss landscape geometry and its consequences for model merging, suggesting that training dynamics could be further manipulated to improve model merging.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 49 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2025.
Builds on
49 of 53 references.
References · 49
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 6,979
- 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,579
- 2019CutMix: Regularization Strategy to Train Strong Classifiers with Localizable Featurescited by 2,875
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,366
- 2022Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference timecited by 1,366
- 2016On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minimacited by 1,337
- 2018Averaging Weights Leads to Wider Optima and Better Generalizationcited by 1,194
- 2022Editing Models with Task Arithmeticcited by 1,076
- 2021Scaling Vision Transformerscited by 993
- 2023TIES-Merging: Resolving Interference When Merging Modelscited by 795
37 more
- 2017Remote Sensing Image Scene Classification: Benchmark and State of the Artcited by 791
- 2024MiniCPM: Unveiling the Potential of Small Language Models with Scalable Training Strategiescited by 694
- 2019Linear Mode Connectivity and the Lottery Ticket Hypothesiscited by 627
- 2021Merging Models with Fisher-Weighted Averagingcited by 613
- 2018Loss Surfaces, Mode Connectivity, and Fast Ensembling of DNNscited by 585
- 2022Git Re-Basin: Merging Models modulo Permutation Symmetriescited by 460
- 2023TinyStories: How Small Can Language Models Be and Still Speak Coherent English?cited by 425
- 2020What is being transferred in transfer learning?cited by 365
- 2016Entropy-SGD: Biasing Gradient Descent Into Wide Valleyscited by 357
- 2018Essentially No Barriers in Neural Network Energy Landscapecited by 328
- 2017Don't Decay the Learning Rate, Increase the Batch Sizecited by 313
- 2017Stochastic Gradient Descent as Approximate Bayesian Inferencecited by 298
- 2021The Role of Permutation Invariance in Linear Mode Connectivity of Neural Networkscited by 285
- 2017Three Factors Influencing Minima in SGDcited by 270
- 2018An Empirical Model of Large-Batch Trainingcited by 268
- 2019A Tail-Index Analysis of Stochastic Gradient Noise in Deep Neural Networkscited by 213
- 2018Do CIFAR-10 Classifiers Generalize to CIFAR-10?cited by 197
- 2019Towards Explaining the Regularization Effect of Initial Large Learning Rate in Training Neural Networkscited by 162
- 2024Scaling Laws and Compute-Optimal Training Beyond Fixed Training Durationscited by 160
- 2023Handbook of Convergence Theorems for (Stochastic) Gradient Methodscited by 158
- 2017A Bayesian Perspective on Generalization and Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 134
- 2017L2 Regularization versus Batch and Weight Normalizationcited by 121
- 2019Which Algorithmic Choices Matter at Which Batch Sizes? Insights From a Noisy Quadratic Modelcited by 116
- 2022On the SDEs and Scaling Rules for Adaptive Gradient Algorithmscited by 100
- 2023A Modern Look at the Relationship between Sharpness and Generalizationcited by 91
- 2020On the Generalization Benefit of Noise in Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 81
- 2023Why Do We Need Weight Decay in Modern Deep Learning?cited by 70
- 2022SGD with Large Step Sizes Learns Sparse Featurescited by 66
- 2018Norm matters: efficient and accurate normalization schemes in deep networkscited by 62
- 2018Data augmentation instead of explicit regularizationcited by 62
- 2025Command A: An Enterprise-Ready Large Language Modelcited by 57
- 2024A Survey on Model MoErging: Recycling and Routing Among Specialized Experts for Collaborative Learningcited by 52
- 2024What Matters for Model Merging at Scale?cited by 52
- 2025Optimizers Qualitatively Alter Solutions And We Should Leverage Thiscited by 17
- 2020How Data Augmentation affects Optimization for Linear Regressioncited by 15
- 2025Generalized Linear Mode Connectivity for Transformerscited by 14
- 2024Where Do Large Learning Rates Lead Us?cited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.
- 2026Sharpness-Aware Pretraining Mitigates Catastrophic Forgetting4 May 2026
- 2025Model Merging via Multi-Teacher Knowledge Distillation24 Dec 2025