Task Arithmetic yields a modular, scalable way to adapt foundation models. Combining multiple task vectors, however, can lead to cross-task interference, causing representation drift and degraded performance. Representation drift regularization provides a natural remedy to disentangle task vectors; however, existing approaches typically require external task data, conflicting with modularity and data availability constraints (e.g., privacy requirements). We propose a dataless approach by framing regularization against representation drift as a curvature matrix approximation problem. This allows us to leverage well-established techniques; in particular, we adopt Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature and obtain a practical regularizer that achieves state-of-the-art results in task addition and negation. Our method has constant complexity in the number of tasks and promotes robustness to task vector rescaling, eliminating the need for held-out tuning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Weight disentanglement (left) without and (right) with Jacobian Gram regularization.
Figure 2
Figure 2: Impact of regularization on “8 Vision” — CLIP ViT-B/16 (abs. accuracy). Left : linearized fine-tuning regime . Right : non-linear regime . See the Appendix for CLIP ViT-B/32 and -L/14.
Method
Dataless
α
ViT-B/32
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14
Abs.
Norm.
Abs.
Norm.
Abs.
Norm.
Pre-trained
–
–
48.4
–
55.4
–
65.0
–
Individual
–
–
90.9
–
92.4
–
93.8
–
Linear Fine-Tuning
Linear FT
–
1.0
76.7
87.2
80.2
88.9
88.0
94.8
–
Best
78.8
89.9
82.0
90.9
88.0
94.8
Table 1: Task addition results on 8 Vision. The “ α ” column specifies how task vector coefficients are chosen. “ 1.0 ” denotes that all coefficients are fixed to 1.0 , with no tuning. Numbers marked with † for TaLoS ( Iurada et al., 2025 ) are taken from the original paper. See Fig. 2 for a task-wise plot.
Method
Dataless
ViT-B/32
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14
Targ. ↓
Cont. ↑
Targ. ↓
Cont. ↑
Targ. ↓
Cont. ↑
Pre-trained
–
48.4
63.3
55.4
68.3
65.0
75.5
Non-linear FT
–
20.4
60.5
20.4
65.3
18.1
72.4
Linear FT
–
9.3
60.5
8.3
65.5
7.5
72.1
TaLoS † ( Iurada et al., 2025 )
✓
11.0
60.7
10.6
66.1
10.7
73.6
τ Jp ( Yoshida et al., 2025 )
×
6.7
60.8
4.7
66.0
3.7
73.0
Table 2: Task negation on 8 Vision. We report the minimum accuracy on target tasks while preserving at least 95% of the pretrained model’s accuracy on control tasks.
Figure 3: Results for language tasks. Left : impact of different training strategies and sensitivity to α hyperparameter. Right : effects of different regularizations on linear and non-linear fine-tuning.
Figure 4: For ViT-B/32 (8 Vision), we analyze the sensitivity of different merging strategies to the scaling coefficient α ; a similar analysis for ViT-B/16 is reported in the Appendix. Left: α -sweep accuracy of post-hoc merging strategies in the non-linear regime, compared with our linearized and regularized models. Right: performance of merging methods on linearized checkpoints.
Figure 5: Distribution of ∥Jθf(x,θ0)τt∥22 for inputs originating from the training distribution of task t (inliers) versus from other tasks (outliers), under both regularized and non-regularized FT.
Method
Complexity
α
ViT-B/32
ViT-B/16
T5-base
Abs.
Norm.
Abs.
Norm.
Abs.
Norm.
Naïve Multi-Task FT
O(T)
1.0
86.5
98.4
88.0
97.5
78.5
97.0
Best
86.6
98.5
88.1
97.6
78.5
97.0
Accumulated reg. (TAK)
O(1)
1.0
85.8
97.6
88.3
97.9
78.6
98.7
Best
86.0
97.8
88.3
98.1
78.7
98.9
Table 3: Our Kronecker-accumulation heuristic vs. the idealized multi-task formulation.
Figure 6: Analysis of the overhead of KFAC regularization during training and pre-computation.
Figure 7: Effect of KFAC approximation efficiency on performance. Left: impact of the number of datapoints used to estimate the KFAC matrices on downstream accuracy of the merged model. Right: accuracy–memory trade-off induced different KFAC matrix compression strategies.
Figure 8: Applying the KFAC loss every N steps.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Visualization of weight disentanglement ( Ortiz-Jimenez et al., 2023 ) in ViT-B/16. Non linear fine-tuning Ilharco et al. (2022) , Linear fine-tuning Ortiz-Jimenez et al. (2023) , Attention-Only fine-tuning Jin et al. (2025) , Linear fine-tuning with KFAC regularization.
Figure 10: Impact of training and regularization choices on vision tasks (absolute accuracy). Top: linearized regime, compared against the diagonal approximation. Bottom: non-linear regime, compared against attention-only fine-tuning.
Method
α
ViT-B/32
ViT-B/16
Abs.
Norm.
Abs.
Norm.
Linear FT + TIES Yadav et al. (2023)
1.0
77.1
87.8
80.1
88.7
Best
77.2
87.8
80.3
88.9
Linear FT + TSV Gargiulo et al. (2025)
1.0
84.2
96.3
86.7
96.5
Best
84.2
96.3
86.8
96.6
Linear FT + ISO Marczak et al. (2025)
1.0
83.8
95.8
86.9
96.7
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of different merging strategies in the linear fine-tuning regime, with and without KFAC regularization. Results are reported for α=1.0 and the best-performing α .
Figure 11: For ViT-B/16 (8 Vision), we analyze the sensitivity of different merging strategies to the scaling coefficient α . Left: α -sweep accuracy of post-hoc merging strategies in the non-linear regime, compared with our linearized and regularized models. Right: performance of merging methods on linearized checkpoints.
Figure 12: Sensitivity to the scaling coefficient α in the non-linear fine-tuning regime. We report α -sweep results for ViT-B/32 (left) and ViT-B/16 (right), comparing standard non-linear fine-tuning, attention-only fine-tuning Jin et al. (2025) , and its variant regularized with the KFAC.
ViT-B/32
λ
Seed 7
Seed 21
Seed 42
AVG.
0
75.0
75.4
75.1
75.2±0.028
1
82.2
82.4
80.6
81.7±0.648
10
85.2
85.1
85.1
85.1±0.002
100
86.2
85.8
86.0
86.0±0.026
1000
86.5
86.4
86.4
86.4±0.002
Appendix
Table 5: On 8 Vision, ablation of λ on ViT-B/32 (left) and ViT-B/16 (right). All performances are reported in terms of absolute accuracy using α=1 .
Method
Dataless
α
ViT-B/32
ViT-B/16
Abs.
Norm.
Abs.
Norm.
Linear FT
–
1.0
76.7
87.2
80.2
88.9
–
Best
78.8
89.9
82.0
90.9
TAK, Ours
✓
1.0
85.8
97.6
88.3
97.9
Best
86.0
97.8
88.3
98.1
ImageNet-TAK, Ours
✓
1.0
84.7
97.0
86.0
95.4
Appendix
Table 6: Task addition results on the eight vision datasets when using either task-specific KFAC factors or a single shared KFAC computed on ImageNet-1k. Results show that a universal, task-agnostic KFAC (ImageNet-KFAC) retains most of the benefits of our regularizer while requiring no access to auxiliary task-specific data.
Figure 13: Task localization under non-linear fine-tuning . We report the distribution of the Jacobian-projected normalcy scores ∥Jθf(x,θ0)τt∥22 for inputs belonging to task t (in-task) versus inputs from all other tasks (out-of-task).
Figure 14: Task localization under linearized fine-tuning with block-compressed KFAC. The separation between the two distributions closely matches that of the full KFAC model, indicating that the block-based compression has negligible impact on task localization and that curvature-based task isolation remains robust even under aggressive memory reductions.
Model
ImageNet-R
EUROSAT
RESISC45
Zero-shot
77.72
49.48
66.02
Non-linear FT
82.32
71.21
73.85
Linear FT
81.66
70.40
72.28
Linear FT w. Diag. GN
81.64
73.94
74.04
τ jP Yoshida et al. (2025)
81.28
84.36
84.83
TAK, Ours (naive penalty)
82.64
79.64
78.91
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison across different regularization strategies on ViT-B/16
Method
Dataless
Abs.
Norm.
Individual
–
85.9
–
Non-lin. FT
–
65.5
75.9
Linear FT
–
76.1
92.0
Attn-Only FT
–
67.0
78.3
TaLoS
✓
75.8
92.8
τ Jp
×
81.0
99.5
Appendix
Table 8: Task addition results for T5-base with α=1 .
Task arithmetic provides an efficient, training-free way to edit pre-trained models, yet lacks a fundamental theoretical explanation for its success. The existing concept of ``weight disentanglement" describes the ideal outcome of non-interfering task composition but does not reveal its underlying cause. Crucially, what intrinsic properties of the pre-trained model (θ0) or the task vectors (τt) enable this disentanglement remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce Task-Feature Specialization (TFS), a model's ability to allocate distinct internal features to different tasks, as the fundamental principle. We first prove that TFS is a sufficient condition for weight disentanglement. More importantly, we find that TFS also gives rise to an observable geometric consequence: weight vector orthogonality. This positions TFS as the common cause for both the desired functional outcome (disentanglement) and a measurable geometric property (orthogonality). This relationship provides the key insight for our method: since the abstract TFS property is intractable to enforce directly, we can instead promote weight disentanglement by shaping its concrete geometric consequence, orthogonality. Therefore, we propose OrthoReg, a simple and effective regularization method that actively enforces an internal orthogonal structure on weight updates (ΔW) that constitute τt during fine-tuning. And we theoretically prove that OrthoReg promotes disentanglement. Extensive experiments demonstrate that OrthoReg consistently and significantly enhances the performance of various task arithmetic methods. Code is available at https://github.com/RL-MIND/OrthoReg.
Shangge Liu, Yuehan Yin, Lei Wang +5
State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China · University of Wollongong, Australia · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Task vector composition has emerged as a promising paradigm for editing pre-trained models, enabling model merging through addition and unlearning through subtraction. Fine-tuning in the tangent space of a pre-trained model (linear fine-tuning) has proven effective, as it produces task vectors that are naturally disentangled and resistant to interference. However, linearized models suffer from limited expressivity during training and incur higher computational costs at inference time, which restrict their practical applicability. In this work, we bridge the gap between linear and standard non-linear fine-tuning. We show that linearity with respect to weight perturbations, a property defined in parameter space, can be enforced through constraints in activation space during training. Concretely, we distill hidden representations from a curvature-regularized linearized teacher into a non-linear student trained via conventional fine-tuning. We find that the resulting model inherits key properties of linearized models for task arithmetic, enabling effective composition of task vectors and achieving strong performance across vision and language benchmarks without incurring any inference-time overhead.
Thomas Sommariva, Francesca Morandi, Simone Calderara +1
ImageLab, Department of Engineering “Enzo Ferrari”, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy · University of Pisa, Italy
Task arithmetic, representing downstream tasks through linear operations on task vectors, has emerged as a simple yet powerful paradigm for transferring knowledge across diverse settings. However, maintaining a large collection of task vectors introduces scalability challenges in both storage and computation. We propose Task Vector Bases, a framework compressing T task vectors into M<T basis vectors while preserving the functionality of task arithmetic. By representing each task vector as a structured linear combination of basis atoms, our approach supports standard operations such as addition, negation, as well as more advanced arithmetic ones. The framework is orthogonal to other efficiency-oriented improvements in task arithmetic and can be used in combination with them. We provide theoretical analysis showing that basis compression retains addition generalization guarantees and enables principled unlearning, with error bounds depending on reconstruction quality. Empirically, our proposed basis construction methods consistently outperform heuristic basis construction baselines and, in some cases, even surpass the performance of full task vector collections across diverse downstream applications while reducing storage and computational requirements. The code is available at https://github.com/uiuctml/TaskVectorBasis.
Siqi Zeng, Yifei He, Meitong Liu +5
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · University of Pennsylvania · Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology