Phantom Transitions in Language Model Fine-Tuning: A Density-Matrix Analysis
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Language models fine-tuned where the correct completion must outrank a near-synonym competitor often fail silently. The cross-entropy loss falls monotonically while the correct token never overtakes the competitor in the model's ranking. We study this across five transformer architectures from two families spanning a sixfold parameter range, on ten contexts whose correct and competing completions share substantial embedding overlap. We build an order parameter combining the predicted distribution with embedding overlap, as a density matrix because that distribution lives over a non-orthogonal basis. It decomposes additively into a signal term tracking commitment to the correct token and a drag term set by how the embedding bulk leaks probability into the score. This isolates two failure modes. In kinematic failure the signal stays too small and the model never commits. In structural failure the drag worsens during fine-tuning, so the model degrades geometrically as its loss falls. The order parameter also shows sharp jumps resembling phase transitions. We test the spontaneous-symmetry-breaking reading by tracking it after every gradient step, and rule it out. The jumps persist under LoRA even though the token embedding matrix never changes. No geometric phase transition is possible when that geometry cannot move, so the discontinuity lies entirely in the softmax readout. A few dimensionless quantities organize the trajectory across architectures. One is consistent across all five models under full fine-tuning. A second sorts architectures into two classes by their bulk embedding distribution and predicts whether LoRA alone can make a sentence commit. As a blind test, the framework predicts a held-out architecture's critical learning rate to within 2.1% of a later sweep. These results characterize this near-synonym mechanism and need recalibration before extrapolation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 May 2026.
Builds on
28 of 40 references.
References · 28
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
- 2021RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embeddingcited by 4,581
- 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
- 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,195
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
- 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,769
16 more
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
- 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,483
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 822
- 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
- 2022Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distributioncited by 722
- 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 658
- 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 599
- 2020Fine-Tuning Pretrained Language Models: Weight Initializations, Data Orders, and Early Stoppingcited by 377
- 2016Using the Output Embedding to Improve Language Modelscited by 266
- 2020On the Stability of Fine-tuning BERT: Misconceptions, Explanations, and Strong Baselinescited by 254
- 2019Representation Degeneration Problem in Training Natural Language Generation Modelscited by 250
- 2017Breaking the Softmax Bottleneck: A High-Rank RNN Language Modelcited by 147
- 2025A Statistical Physics of Language Model Reasoningcited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.