mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Not the Dimension, the Norm: What Matters in Gradient-Free Weight Perturbation of Language Models

arXiv 2608.01624 ↗First posted 3 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Adapting a language model to a task no longer requires training all of its weights, and a line of parameter-efficient methods has driven the trainable count from billions down to a handful of scalars. Gradient-free adaptation, which samples random weight perturbations and keeps the ones that score well, has not followed that trajectory and still perturbs every entry of the weight tensor. It is unknown whether that full-weight search is necessary, and more fundamentally which property of a perturbation makes it work at all, because existing methods vary the search space, the perturbation scale, and the aggregation together. We resolve this by intervening on one factor at a time inside a fixed pipeline, holding candidate scoring and voting constant while we vary the search dimension, the subspace that carries the perturbation, and its norm. Perturbing a frozen frame of 12 to 16 scalars stays 1.8 accuracy points behind full-weight search on average across 49 model-benchmark cells, trailing it in 36 of them. Neither the dimension nor the choice of basis explains that performance. A random frame whose Grassmann overlap with the SVD frame is at chance level performs identically once a single scale factor is matched, and at large scales the SVD directions collapse first. What survives is the perturbation norm, whose usable range closes within a factor of five across seven models and stays flat inside. The perturbation norm is therefore the one factor with a failure mode, and its safe region transfers across scale and family. The design question narrows from which subspace to perturb to how hard to shake.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 22 references.

References · 15

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  3. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
  4. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  5. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  6. 2017Evolution Strategies as a Scalable Alternative to Reinforcement Learningcited by 574
  7. 2016A Corpus and Evaluation Framework for Deeper Understanding of Commonsense Storiescited by 417
  8. 2018Measuring the Intrinsic Dimension of Objective Landscapescited by 370
  9. 2023Fine-Tuning Language Models with Just Forward Passescited by 345
  10. 2023VeRA: Vector-based Random Matrix Adaptationcited by 300
  11. 2018Molecular Transformer - A Model for Uncertainty-Calibrated Chemical Reaction Predictioncited by 229
  12. 2023Understanding the Latent Space of Diffusion Models through the Lens of Riemannian Geometrycited by 125
3 more
  1. 2024LoRA-XS: Low-Rank Adaptation with Extremely Small Number of Parameterscited by 76
  2. 2026The Blessing of Dimensionality in LLM Fine-tuning: A Variance-Curvature Perspectivecited by 10
  3. 2020PEP: Parameter Ensembling by Perturbationcited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.