An Empirical Study and Theoretical Explanation on Task-Level Model-Merging Collapse
Authors: Yuan Cao, Dezhi Ran, Yuzhe Guo, Mengzhou Wu, Simin Chen, Linyi Li, Wei Yang, Tao Xie
Organizations: Key Lab of HCST (PKU), MOE; SCS, Peking University, Beijing, China · Computer Science Department at Columbia University, New York, USA · School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada · Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA
Model merging unifies independently fine-tuned LLMs from the same base, enabling reuse and integration of parallel development efforts without retraining. However, in practice we observe that merging does not always succeed: certain combinations of task-specialist models suffer from catastrophic performance degradation after merging. We refer to this failure mode as merging collapse. Intuitively, collapse arises when the learned representations or parameter adjustments for different tasks are fundamentally incompatible, so that merging forces destructive interference rather than synergy. In this paper, we identify and characterize the phenomenon of task-level merging collapse, where certain task combinations consistently trigger huge performance degradation across all merging methods. Through extensive experiments and statistical analysis, we demonstrate that representational incompatibility between tasks is strongly correlated with merging collapse, while parameter-space conflict metrics show minimal correlation, challenging conventional wisdom in model merging literature. We provide a theoretical explanation on this phenomenon through rate-distortion theory with a dimension-dependent bound, establishing fundamental limits on task mergeability regardless of methodology.
Figures & tables
Model
Merging Techniques
LA
TA
TIES
DARE
SLERP
Llama3.2-3B
17.3 ± 7.5
17.6 ± 7.8
21.8 ± 16.9
57.0 ± 27.5
17.5 ± 8.0
Llama3.1-8B
22.0 ± 22.2
22.0 ± 22.2
31.7 ± 19.9
66.1 ± 27.9
22.2 ± 23.0
Qwen2.5-3B
13.7 ± 15.1
13.6 ± 15.2
13.3 ± 13.0
27.1 ± 16.8
13.1 ± 14.7
Qwen2.5-7B
17.4 ± 23.3
17.0 ± 22.2
26.1 ± 24.3
62.6 ± 24.6
17.6 ± 22.6
Qwen2.5-14B
19.0 ± 26.3
19.1 ± 26.9
18.6 ± 25.7
31.9 ± 27.8
18.9 ± 26.3
Table 1: Merging Losses on GLUE tasks across Different Merging Techniques and Models.
Model
Merging
NLP Tasks
COLA
MNLI
MRPC
QNLI
QQP
RTE
SST-2
WNLI
FT
M(Δ)
FT
M(Δ)
FT
M(Δ)
FT
M(Δ)
FT
M(Δ)
FT
M(Δ)
FT
M(Δ)
FT
M(Δ)
3B
LA
82.7
81.0 ( -2.1 )
88.4
86.2 ( -2.4 )
89.5
75.5 ( -15.6 )
92.6
85.0 ( -8.2 )
84.2
62.6 ( -25.7 )
90.3
85.2 ( -5.6 )
95.4
93.7 ( -1.8 )
73.2
38.0 ( -48.1 )
TA
82.7
81.2 ( -1.9 )
88.4
86.2 ( -2.5 )
89.5
75.5 ( -15.6 )
92.6
85.1 ( -8.1 )
84.2
62.6 ( -25.7 )
90.3
85.6 ( -5.2 )
95.4
93.6 ( -1.9 )
73.2
38.0 ( -48.1 )
TIES
82.7
79.2 ( -4.3 )
88.4
87.8 ( -0.7 )
89.5
83.6 ( -6.6 )
92.6
67.8 ( -26.9 )
84.2
63.2 ( -24.9 )
90.3
87.7 ( -2.8 )
95.4
91.9 ( -3.7 )
73.2
46.5 ( -36.5 )
DARE
82.7
70.4 ( -14.9 )
88.4
35.4 ( -60.0 )
89.5
82.6 ( -7.7 )
92.6
50.6 ( -45.4 )
84.2
63.2 ( -24.9 )
90.3
80.9 ( -10.4 )
95.4
73.7 ( -22.7 )
73.2
50.7 ( -30.8 )
Table 2: Effectiveness of different merging methods on NLP Tasks with Qwen2.5 Models.
Task Setting
Merging Tech.
Task
Glue
0.575
2.357×10−36
Lots-of-LoRAs
0.987
1.699×10−7
Table 3: P-values of One-way ANOVA F-tests ( Maxwell et al., 2017 ) for Task-level and Merging-technique-level Effects. p<0.05 indicates statistical significance.
Conflict Metrics
Merging Techniques
TIES
LA
DARE
SLERP
TA
Parameter Magnitude Change Ratio
0.192
0.098
0.834
0.085
0.186
Parameter Sign Change Ratio
0.379
0.460
0.882
0.408
0.659
Conflicting Parameter Magnitude Change Ratio
0.170
0.170
0.979
0.156
0.235
Average Cosine Similarity
0.262
0.459
0.635
0.444
0.296
Hidden State Distance Similarity
0.006
0.001
0.145
0.001
0.006
Table 4: P-values of Pearson correlation coefficient ( Benesty et al., 2009 ) on how conflict metrics are correlated to merging loss with different merging techniques when merging two model checkpoints. p<0.05 indicates statistical significance.
Large language models fine-tuned from a shared base can be merged by averaging their task vectors, but some merges collapse far below the base model, and common merge operators give no warning before evaluation. We show that one statistic of the specialists' task vectors both predicts this collapse and calibrates its repair. The power that averaging removes equals the variance of the task vectors across specialists, our measure of interference. Under a working noise model, the disturbance that a merge injects grows with the merge coefficient and with interference, yielding a pre-merge score. In our experiments on twenty-two merge configurations from four model families, only destructive merges exceed a threshold on this score. We find that statistics of sign conflict between specialists, a common target of existing merge operators, are anti-predictive. We then predicted the outcomes of fourteen merges before evaluating them, and twelve predictions were correct, including the destructive outcome of a specialist pair pushed past the threshold by continued pretraining. To address this collapse, we introduce PRISM, an operator that averages the task vectors first and then soft-thresholds each layer at a level set by the layer's interference. Without data or tuning, PRISM keeps all five destructive merges above the threshold within evaluation noise of the base model, where plain averaging falls at least 14.4 points below it or collapses entirely. We apply PRISM only above the threshold and keep the plain average for merges below it, which include all fifteen harmless ones. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/PRISM.
Jungseob Lee, Seungyoon Lee, Sugyeong Eo +3
Korea University · Yonsei University Mirae Campus · Sookmyung Women’s University +1
Model merging combines the parameters of multiple neural networks into a single model without additional training. As fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) proliferate, merging offers a computationally efficient alternative to ensembles and full retraining, enabling practitioners to compose specialized capabilities at minimal cost. This survey examines model merging in the LLM era through the FUSE taxonomy, organized along Foundations, Unification Strategies, Scenarios, and Ecosystem. We first establish the theoretical underpinnings of merging, including loss landscape geometry and mode connectivity, then systematically review the algorithmic space spanning weight averaging, task vector arithmetic, sparsification-enhanced methods, mixture-of-experts architectures, and evolutionary optimization. We further examine downstream applications across multi-task learning, safety alignment, domain specialization, and federated learning, and survey the supporting ecosystem of tools and evaluation benchmarks. Finally, we identify key open challenges and future directions, aiming to equip researchers and practitioners with a structured foundation for advancing model merging.
Model merging has emerged as a promising paradigm for integrating multiple task-specific capabilities into a single large language model. However, existing methods predominantly focus on post-hoc processing of independently fine-tuned models, overlooking how the training phase itself impacts cross-task compatibility. Resolving parameter conflicts after fine-tuning is inherently sub-optimal. To address this, we propose CAMFT, a Conflict-Aware Mergeable Fine-Tuning method that makes task adaptation both efficient and mergeaware. CAMFT treats mergeability as a property shaped during fine-tuning, rather than only a problem to be solved after fine-tuning. By guiding each task to update sparse coordinates with lower cross-task conflict, CAMFT produces task updates that are efficient to train and more compatible for downstream model merging. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CAMFT outperforms standard finetuning baselines in multi-task merging scenarios. Codes are available at https://github.com/gyanchow/CAMFT-LLM.
Jingang Zhou, Haiyang Guo, Yuan Ma +2
School of Advanced Interdisciplinary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences