These concerns are more relevant than ever, since the architecture size, amount of training data, and computing power used by state-of-the-art models continue to increase.

Low-rank adapters (LoRA) and their variants are popular parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) techniques that closely match full model fine-tune performance while requiring only a small number of additional parameters. These additional LoRA parameters are specific to the base model being adapted. When the base model needs to be deprecated and replaced with a new one, all the associated LoRA modules need to be re-trained. Such re-training requires access to the data used to train the LoRA for the original base model. This is especially problematic for commercial cloud applications where the LoRA modules and the base models are hosted by service providers who may not be allowed to host proprietary client task data. To address this challenge, we propose $\textit{Trans-LoRA}$ --- a novel method for lossless, nearly data-free transfer of LoRAs across base models. Our approach relies on synthetic data to transfer LoRA modules. Using large language models, we design a synthetic data generator to approximate the data-generating process of the $\textit{observed}$ task data subset.

Representational similarity metrics are fundamental tools in neuroscience and AI, yet we lack systematic comparisons of their discriminative power across model families. We introduce a quantitative framework to evaluate representational similarity measures based on their ability to separate model families-across architectures (CNNs, Vision Transformers, Swin Transformers, ConvNeXt) and training regimes (supervised vs. self-supervised). Using three complementary separability measures-dprime from signal detection theory, silhouette coefficients and ROC-AUC, we systematically assess the discriminative capacity of commonly used metrics including RSA, linear predictivity, Procrustes, and soft matching. We show that separability systematically increases as metrics impose more stringent alignment constraints. Among mapping-based approaches, soft-matching achieves the highest separability, followed by Procrustes alignment and linear predictivity. Non-fitting methods such as RSA also yield strong separability across families. These results provide the first systematic comparison of similarity metrics through a separability lens, clarifying their relative sensitivity and guiding metric choice for large-scale model and brain comparisons.

Large vision models differ widely in architecture and training paradigm, yet we lack principled methods to determine which aspects of their representations are shared across families and which reflect distinctive computational strategies. We leverage a suite of representational similarity metrics, each capturing a different facet-geometry, unit tuning, or linear decodability-and assess family separability using multiple complementary measures. Metrics preserving geometry or tuning (e.g., RSA, Soft Matching) yield strong family discrimination, whereas flexible mappings such as Linear Predictivity show weaker separation. These findings indicate that geometry and tuning carry family-specific signatures, while linearly decodable information is more broadly shared. To integrate these complementary facets, we adapt Similarity Network Fusion (SNF), a method inspired by multi-omics integration. SNF achieves substantially sharper family separation than any individual metric and produces robust composite signatures. Clustering of the fused similarity matrix recovers both expected and surprising patterns: supervised ResNets and ViTs form distinct clusters, yet all self-supervised models group together across architectural boundaries. Hybrid architectures (ConvNeXt, Swin) cluster with masked autoencoders, suggesting convergence between architectural modernization and reconstruction-based training. This biology-inspired framework provides a principled typology of vision models, showing that emergent computational strategies-shaped jointly by architecture and training objective-define representational structure beyond surface design categories.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on chain-of-thought (CoT) data shows that a small amount of high-quality data can outperform massive datasets. Yet, what constitutes "quality" remains ill-defined. Existing reasoning methods rely on indirect heuristics such as problem difficulty or trace length, while instruction-tuning has explored a broader range of automated selection strategies, but rarely in the context of reasoning. We propose to define reasoning data quality using influence functions, which measure the causal effect of individual CoT examples on downstream accuracy, and introduce influence-based pruning, which consistently outperforms perplexity and embedding-based baselines on math reasoning within a model family.

Large language models must satisfy hard orthographic constraints during controlled text generation, yet systematic cross-architecture evaluation remains limited. We evaluate 28 configurations spanning three model families (Qwen3, Claude Haiku-4.5, GPT-5-mini) on 58 word puzzles requiring character-level constraint satisfaction. Architectural differences produce substantially larger performance gaps (2.0-2.2x, F1=0.761 vs. 0.343) than parameter scaling within families (83% gain from eightfold scaling), suggesting that constraint satisfaction may require specialized architectural features or training objectives beyond standard language model scaling. Thinking budget sensitivity proves heterogeneous: high-capacity models show strong returns (+0.102 to +0.136 F1), while mid-sized variants saturate or degrade. These patterns are inconsistent with uniform compute benefits. Using difficulty ratings from 10,000 human solvers per puzzle, we establish modest but consistent calibration (r=0.24-0.38) across all families, yet identify systematic failures on common words with unusual orthography ("data", "poop", "loll": 86-95% human success, 89-96% model miss rate). These failures reveal over-reliance on distributional plausibility that penalizes orthographically atypical but constraint-valid patterns, suggesting architectural innovations may be required beyond simply scaling parameters or computational budgets.