Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

From Coefficients to Directions: Rethinking Model Merging with Directional Alignment

About

Model merging has emerged as a practical paradigm for integrating multiple independently trained models into a single model without joint retraining. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of combining parameters through strategies such as parameter decomposition, coefficient optimization, and subspace learning, significantly reducing the need for expensive joint training and achieving strong empirical performance across diverse tasks. However, these approaches predominantly treat merging as a problem of parameter space decomposition or fusion coefficient optimization, while overlooking the critical role of directional information in both parameter and feature spaces. In practice, na\"ive merging introduces inconsistencies in dominant parameter directions and disrupts structural coherence across models, which can degrade performance. Moreover, coefficient-based optimization methods implicitly assume compatible feature-space directions across models. However, Neural Collapse indicates that class features follow structured directional patterns, which may differ across independently trained models, making coefficient optimization alone insufficient. In this work, we emphasize the importance of \emph{directional alignment} and introduce a unified geometric framework, \emph{Merging with Directional Alignment} (\method{}), which aligns directional structures consistently in both the parameter and feature spaces. Our analysis shows that directional alignment improves structural coherence, and extensive experiments across benchmarks, model scales, and task configurations further validate the effectiveness of our approach.

Zhikang Chen, Sen Cui, Deheng Ye, Min Zhang, Gang Niu, Yu Zhang, Masashi Sugiyama, Tingting Zhu• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Image ClassificationDTD
Accuracy94.3
419
Image ClassificationSVHN
Accuracy96.1
359
ClassificationCars
Accuracy73.2
314
Image ClassificationGTSRB
Accuracy97.3
291
Image ClassificationRESISC45
Accuracy93.3
263
Image ClassificationMNIST
Accuracy86.1
263
Image ClassificationSUN397
Accuracy71.5
246
Image ClassificationEuroSAT
Accuracy48.8
83
Image ClassificationVision Multi-task Suite (SUN397, Cars, RESISC45, EuroSAT, SVHN, GTSRB, MNIST, DTD)
Average Accuracy88.6
72
Image Classification8 Vision Tasks (test)
Avg Accuracy93.6
47
Showing 10 of 15 rows

Other info

Follow for update