Exploring Weight-Space Programming: Capabilities, Generalization, and Limitations
Abstract
Weight-Space Programming can produce large localized accuracy gains and uneven cross-task transfer, but reliable editing remains inconsistent.
Weight-Space Programming (WSP) enables reasoning agents to directly inspect and modify neural network parameters, offering an alternative to gradient-based model adaptation. However, its capabilities, cross-task generalization, and practical limitations remain insufficiently understood. We systematically investigate WSP through 16 editing trajectories across seven benchmarks and two model scales (Qwen3.5-0.8B and Qwen3.5-9B). Our findings reveal three key insights. First, WSP can achieve substantial performance gains through highly localized interventions. On full held-out evaluations, accuracy improves by up to 29.45, 4.42, 36.72, and 17.11 percentage points on MATH-500, GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and SciBench, respectively. Notably, modifying only 1,023 parameters yields a 29.45-point improvement. Second, WSP exhibits promising but uneven cross-task generalization. A Math-edited checkpoint improves GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and SciBench by 3.03, 12.18, and 20.10 points, respectively, without further editing, while leaving SciCode performance unchanged. Third, effective editing remains challenging and inconsistent. Outcomes vary substantially across trajectories, and six of the 16 trajectories retain the original weights when candidate improvements cannot be reliably validated. Together, these results highlight WSP's potential for highly localized model adaptation while revealing important challenges in intervention discovery, reliability, and cross-task transfer. Homepage: https://wsp-scope.github.io/ GitHub: https://github.com/WSP-Scope/WSP-Scope-Project
Community
We systematically evaluate Weight-Space Programming through 16 editing trajectories across seven benchmarks and two model scales. Our results show uneven cross-task transfer, substantial variation across independent searches, and more limited gains on the larger model. Feedback and discussion are welcome.
Okay, an agent editing a model's weights directly is wild, and I'm surprised by gains from such localized edits. Did the edits that helped one benchmark tend to hurt another, especially at the 0.8B scale?
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Exploration via Activation-Space Steering for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (2026)
- Activation-Conditioned Self-Distillation (2026)
- Rethinking Self-Distillation for Multi-Teacher Capability Merging (2026)
- Latent-MOPD: Latent Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (2026)
- Label-free steering: Compressing test-time reinforcement learning into bias-only subspaces (2026)
- RESCUE: Repairing Language Model Errors to Sparse Circuits via Reinforcement Learning (2026)
- From Gradients to Capabilities: Understanding Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2611.09382 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper