Papers

随机权重扰动找不到任务专家?论文质疑 Neural Thickets 结论

Does Random Search Discover Task Experts? Revisiting Neural Thickets

Why we picked it

之前有人说对模型权重随机扰动一下就能挖出任务专家,这篇复现发现收益多半是选择噪声,方法拆解得很细。

Gan & Isola (2026) 曾提出预训练模型周围存在可用高斯权重扰动挖出的任务专家。这篇论文在 12 组模型-任务对上重新检验,发现其中 10 组的最佳专家收益超过 75% 可由纯选择噪声的零模型解释。最佳扰动专家在 held-out 问题上优势消失,或落在基线模型 run-to-run 波动范围内。RandOpt(N, K) 的多数投票常被直接对基座模型采样 K 次后投票持平或反超,论文代码已开源在 github.com/asil012/RevisitingNeuralThickets。

Original · arXiv cs.LG

Does Random Search Discover Task Experts? Revisiting Neural Thickets

Pretrained models are typically viewed as generalists, requiring bespoke post-training to achieve task-specific expertise. Gan & Isola (2026) recently proposed a striking alternative: that pretrained models lie in a dense neural thicket of task specialists, which can be surfaced with simple Gaussian weight perturbations. We examine this neural thicket of task-specific experts and identify several key findings that question this perspective. First, we find that the apparent lift of the best-of-N selected perturbation decays quickly with selection-set size m, strongly suggesting overfitting to the selection questions. In fact, for 10 of the 12 model-task pairs we study, a simple null model of pure selection noise predicts more than 75 percent of the top expert's reward lift. Second, the top experts' advantage often vanishes on held-out questions or remains within the run-to-run variability of the unperturbed pretrained model. Third, we find that majority voting over the top-K selected perturbations, termed RandOpt(N, K) by Gan & Isola (2026), is often matched or outperformed by majority voting over K samples from the base model. Overall, our results suggest that random weight perturbations may be ineffective at uncovering task experts around pretrained models, and that task adaptation requires more sophistication than random search. Code and artifacts are available at github.com/asil012/RevisitingNeuralThickets.