Abstract
Multi-task model merging combines separately trained expert models into a single model that handles all tasks without co-training. Standard practice merges experts at their optimal validation loss. We challenge this convention by systematically studying how training duration of domain experts affects the quality of the merged model. We fine-tune experts on five domains (Math, Code, Instruction Following, Multilingual, and Safety) across three model sizes (Qwen 3.5 0.8B, 2B, and 4B), saving checkpoints from 25% to 500% of the optimal training steps and evaluating five merging methods at each duration. Our findings reveal a striking method-dependent pattern: simple averaging degrades sharply with overfitting, while sparsification-based methods achieve their best performance well past the validation optimum. We formalize this through bias-variance decomposition analysis, drawing a parallel to random forests where averaging benefits from high-variance individual learners. These results suggest that training duration and merging method should be chosen jointly rather than independently.
Cite
@inproceedings{kozodoi2026merging,
title={Are We Merging the Right Models? Impact of Expert Training Duration on Model Merging for LLMs},
author={Kozodoi, N. and Afolabi, Z. and Butler, J.},
booktitle={{ICML} 2026 Workshop on Weight-Space Symmetries},
year={2026}
}
