First-Order Predictable but Pairwise Fragile: Local Task Adaptation in Trained Transformers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Task arithmetic, sequential fine-tuning, activation steering, and first-order random search all operate through relatively small perturbations around an already trained checkpoint, and they rely on different local approximations: individual perturbations should be first-order predictable, task updates should compose with controlled interference, useful tangent structure should be stable and possible to estimate, and weight edits should have counterparts in representation space. We measure 8 such properties with the same harness around a multitask LoRA operating point, on 9 transformers (82M-7B), with a prospectively registered property list, thresholds, and test split. We find a shared one-direction validity window up to the tested scale 10-2, but no universal radius for pairwise composition or update ordering. Along individual directions, changes of the probe loss remain first-order predictable throughout the grid: a perturbation's effect on the loss is essentially its projection onto the gradient, which is also what makes local random search work. Pairwise structure, however, proves to be far more fragile: on over a third of the measured (model, task pair) combinations, two-update order sensitivity sets in strictly inside that window; task-gradient subspaces rotate within tens of steps; additivity under our fixed activation probe fails at full task-vector scale on several models, including both held-out 7B models; and no model median passes the registered global mean-vector weight-to-steering correspondence bar. For two sequential task-gradient steps, the leading order-dependent term is the Lie bracket HBgA-HAgB; its normalized prediction c(η)=ηkappa+O(η2) tracks the measured defect at median ratio 1.002, while the onset scale η^dagger≈0.10/kappa spans three orders of magnitude across models and task pairs.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 46 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2026.
Builds on
46 of 56 references.
References · 46
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,464
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,140
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
- 2020Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalizationcited by 1,404
- 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
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2017Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Netscited by 1,126
34 more
- 2022Editing Models with Task Arithmeticcited by 1,076
- 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,009
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 824
- 2023TIES-Merging: Resolving Interference When Merging Modelscited by 795
- 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 658
- 2024TinyLlama: An Open-Source Small Language Modelcited by 604
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 599
- 2018Loss Surfaces, Mode Connectivity, and Fast Ensembling of DNNscited by 585
- 2017Evolution Strategies as a Scalable Alternative to Reinforcement Learningcited by 555
- 2017Sharp Minima Can Generalize For Deep Netscited by 462
- 2019Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspectivecited by 438
- 2018Measuring the Intrinsic Dimension of Objective Landscapescited by 364
- 2023Fine-Tuning Language Models with Just Forward Passescited by 337
- 2018Essentially No Barriers in Neural Network Energy Landscapecited by 328
- 20242 OLMo 2 Furiouscited by 302
- 2023Function Vectors in Large Language Modelscited by 292
- 2019An Investigation into Neural Net Optimization via Hessian Eigenvalue Densitycited by 289
- 2017Empirical Analysis of the Hessian of Over-Parametrized Neural Networkscited by 283
- 2018Gradient Descent Happens in a Tiny Subspacecited by 208
- 2024ReFT: Representation Finetuning for Language Modelscited by 186
- 2021On the Origin of Implicit Regularization in Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 183
- 2019Measurements of Three-Level Hierarchical Structure in the Outliers in the Spectrum of Deepnet Hessianscited by 68
- 2023Parameter Efficient Multi-task Model Fusion with Partial Linearizationcited by 64
- 2024Does SGD really happen in tiny subspaces?cited by 35
- 2026Neural Thickets: Diverse Task Experts Are Dense Around Pretrained Weightscited by 25
- 2021Discretization Drift in Two-Player Gamescited by 14
- 2025Commute Your Domains: Trajectory Optimality Criterion for Multi-Domain Learningcited by 9
- 2026The Geometry of Sequential Learning: Lie-Bracket Prediction of Transfer Ordercited by 8
- 2026Phase Transitions for Feature Learning in Neural Networkscited by 6
- 2026Optimizer Memory Makes Shuffle Order a First-Order Source of Fine-Tuning Noisecited by 6
- 2026Predicting Mergeability of Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Updatescited by 2
- 2025DOME: Improving Signal-to-Noise in Stochastic Gradient Descent via Sharp-Direction Subspace Filteringcited by 1
- 2026Generalizing the Geometry of Model Merging Through Frechet Averagescited by 1
- 2026Recoverable but Not Stationary:Local Linear Structures in Weights and Activationscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.