Tiantong Wu

Gong Zhiren, Tiantong Wu, Jiaming Zhang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for knowledge synthesis, yet their capacity for compositional generalization in scientific knowledge remains under-characterized. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on single-turn restricted scenarios, failing to capture the capability boundaries exposed by real-world interactive scientific workflows. To address this, we introduce XDomainBench, a diagnostic benchmark for interactive interdisciplinary scientific reasoning. We formalize the composition order and mixture structure to enable systematic stress-testing from single-discipline to inter-disciplinary, comprising 8,598 interactive sessions across 20 domains and 4 task categories, with 8 realistic trajectory patterns covering difficulty and domain-mixture dynamics, simulating real AI4S scenarios. Large-scale evaluation of LLMs reveals a systematic reasoning collapse as composition order increases, stemming from two root causes: (i) direct difficulty increases induced by domain composition, and (ii) indirect interaction-amplified failures where trajectory patterns trigger error accumulation, reasoning breaks, and domain confusion, ultimately leading to session collapse.

Tiantong Wang, Yiyang Duan, Haoyu Chen et al.

Training of large-scale models is both computationally intensive and often constrained by the availability of labeled data. Model merging offers a compelling alternative by directly integrating the weights of multiple source models without requiring additional data or extensive training. However, conventional model merging techniques, such as parameter averaging, often suffer from the unintended combination of non-generalizable features, especially when source models exhibit significant weight disparities. Comparatively, model ensembling generally provides more stable and superior performance that aggregates multiple models by averaging outputs. However, it incurs higher inference costs and increased storage requirements. While previous studies experimentally showed the similarities between model merging and ensembling, theoretical evidence and evaluation metrics remain lacking. To address this gap, we introduce Merging-ensembling loss (M-Loss), a novel evaluation metric that quantifies the compatibility of merging source models using very limited unlabeled data. By measuring the discrepancy between parameter averaging and model ensembling at layer and node levels, M-Loss facilitates more effective merging strategies. Specifically, M-Loss serves both as a quantitative criterion of the theoretical feasibility of model merging, and a guide for parameter significance in model pruning. Our theoretical analysis and empirical evaluations demonstrate that incorporating M-Loss into the merging process significantly improves the alignment between merged models and model ensembling, providing a scalable and efficient framework for accurate model consolidation.