Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Fine-tuned checkpoints and adapters now fill public repositories, and the most common operation applied to these artifacts is model merging: arithmetic on their weights that assembles capabilities cheaply. We ask what this operation does to emergent capabilities: behaviors an artifact carries that were never an explicit training target. Studying two independent testbeds (activation oracles and emergent-misaligned models) across three model families, we find that the answer is threefold. First, merging preserves an emergent capability that both parents carry: merging two misaligned checkpoints retains most of their broad misalignment across the whole mixing range. Second, merging cannot create an emergent capability that is superadditive in its parents: no weighted merge of two single-task oracles reaches the jointly-trained oracle's auditing ability. Third, when only one parent carries the capability, merging dilutes it faster than the trained capability that accompanies it: the gap is significant in most settings. In short, emergent behaviors of an artifact do not compose the way its trained capability does.