Xiaoyang Li | Search arXiv

arXiv2026

Leakage-Audited Benchmarking Reveals Limited Evidence for Cross-Subject Auditory-Evoked EEG Vowel Perception Decoding

We tested whether auditory-evoked EEG supports subject-independent five-vowel perception decoding when trial identity, model identity, prediction provenance, and participant-level inference are controlled within a single benchmark. We reconstructed Study 2 event tables from OpenNeuro ds006104 version 1.0.1 and analysed the consonant-vowel pair task. One-to-one marker-stimulus pairing yielded 3,840 independent trials; control-condition selection and artifact rejection retained 1,094 epochs from 16 participants and 61 EEG channels. Thirteen unique implementations were evaluated using leave-one-subject-out testing, with participant metrics reconstructed from 36,102 trial predictions across 33 complete prediction replicas. Random Forest was numerically highest at 21.474% balanced accuracy (95% participant-bootstrap interval, 19.526-23.482%; chance, 20%), but neither its participant-level tests nor any implementation survived correction across the 13-model family. Deep-model performance was close to chance, and several architectures showed substantial seed-dependent variation and low trial-label agreement. An exploratory MDM analysis comprising 9,616 genuine refits across training cohorts of 3-15 participants showed no monotonic performance gain. Within this dataset and protocol, evidence for reliable cross-subject five-vowel decoding is limited. The benchmark provides a reproducible chain from source rows to retained epochs, predictions, participant-level metrics, multiplicity-adjusted inference, and bounded diagnostic analyses.

eess.SP↗

arXiv2026

When Do Task Vectors Interfere? Mapping the Validity Boundaries of Weight-Space Composition

Task arithmetic composes skills by adding weight displacements, and merged models are then judged on benchmark suites. We measure when that composition is functionally additive, and find that the answer depends as much on how the model is prompted as on which tasks are merged. Across two-dimensional composition surfaces -- five model settings from 0.5B to 8B, two families, LoRA and full fine-tuning -- pairwise non-additivity is real, seed-stable, and transfers in coarse order to unseen task pairs: all eight preregistered sign predictions held. But it is input-conditioned everywhere we measured: the same merged model that shows a six-point interaction contrast on code prompts shows none on math prompts, and wrapping the identical code prompts in the instruction template the adapters were trained on collapses the contrast twenty-fold, from +6.9 to +0.3 points -- while re-serializing them in an untrained chat template leaves it intact (+12.5), falsifying our own preregistered prediction. Execution benchmarks (pass@1) inherit the training-format wrapper's blindness. Weight-space composition therefore supports coarse, input- and format-conditioned functional statements -- not a universal merging-performance predictor, and not one that training-format evaluations can see.

cs.LG↗