探索全球前沿学术脉络

Post-Hoc Merging is Not Enough: Many-Shot Model Merging with Loss-Gap Balancing

arXiv:2606.16501v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Model merging has become a practical post-training strategy for building a single multi-task large language model (LLM) by combining multiple task-specialized models. However, most existing approaches rely on post-hoc merging, in which task-specific models are merged only once after training. This one-shot aggregation often suffers from task interference, leading to information erasure across individual tasks. In this work, we show that replacing post-hoc merging with an iterative many-shot merging protocol is effective in improving multi-task performance. Building on this insight, we propose METIS, Mitigating Erasure from Task Interference for Stable many-shot merging. METIS is a loss-aware many-shot merging method that addresses information erasure in post-hoc merging through task-wise loss-gap weighting and consensus-based masking. Notably, METIS exhibits significant performance improvement on the worst-performing task, effectively mitigating information erasure. (Project page: https://imkyungjin.github.io/METIS/)

"I Didn't Make the Micro Decisions": Measuring, Inducing, and Exposing Goal-Level AI Contributions in Collaboration

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.