arXiv Machine Learning By Chencheng Zhu

Reading the Gate, Not the Interference: Output-Side Interference Measurement Does Not Track Merge Collapse

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The paper investigates why task‑arithmetic merging fails by measuring the exact layerwise activation cross‑term of a factorial ledger. It shows that this cross‑term is largely transported and amplified by each block, is regenerated by untouched marginal paths, and varies monotonically with the displacement angle, yet it does not predict merge collapse. The study finds that behavioural performance is decoupled from the cross‑term, and that collapse is driven by marginal displacements rather than the cross‑term, which is only a bystander.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Anatomy of a Closed-Loop Collapse: A Causal Case Study of a Compressed VLA Policy

The paper presents a causal analysis of a compressed VLA policy that performs well in offline tests but fails in closed‑loop execution on a simulated pick‑and‑place task. An 8‑layer distillation of Octo‑Base retains most parameters and passes all offline metrics, yet collapses during deployment, with early stages degrading gradually and final transport failing entirely. The failure is traced to a negative, late‑heavy residual in the action trace, and standard remedies (continued training, offline data, command‑level compensation, clamping) do not restore performance; only a minimal‑pair intervention that mixes deployment‑distribution rollouts with teacher data restores parity with the teacher. whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that offline validation metrics alone are insufficient to guarantee closed‑loop success for compressed policies, highlighting the need for targeted deployment‑time testing and interventions."

By Fengze Jia (The Ohio State University)
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 31

Exposure is not manifestation: measurement target and output resolution jointly determine which behavioural-faithfulness evaluator wins

arXiv:2607. 09306v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Behavioural auditing asks whether a language model behaves as it claims, but detection scores are reported without separating two targets: whether a reply was produced under a behaviour-inducing condition (exposure) and whether the behaviour surfaced in it (manifestation).

By Kwan Soo Shin
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 5

Sensitivity, Causality, and Repair Dissociate: A Layer-Wise Analysis of Perturbation Robustness and Its Scaling

arXiv:2608. 03842v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a language model fails on surface-perturbed input (typos, OCR noise, homophones), "which layer is responsible" has three natural operationalizations: where representations diverge most (sensitivity), where restoring clean activations recovers the prediction (causality), and where a small adapter can repair the damage (compensatory capacity) - and we show these three layer maps dissociate.

By Nathan Labiosa, David Buff, Ena Nayak, Erica Donno