Fantastic Features and Where to Find Them: A Probing Method to combine Features from Multiple Foundation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foundation models (FMs) trained with different objectives and data learn diverse representations, making some more effective than others for specific downstream tasks. Existing adaptation strategies, such as parameter-efficient fine-tuning, focus on individual models and do not exploit the complementary strengths across models. Probing methods offer a promising alternative by extracting information from frozen models, but current techniques do not scale well with large feature sets and often rely on dataset-specific hyperparameter tuning. We propose Combined backBones (ComBo), a simple and scalable probing-based adapter that effectively integrates features from multiple models and layers. ComBo compresses activations from layers of one or more FMs into compact token-wise representations and processes them with a lightweight transformer for task-specific prediction. Crucially, ComBo does not require dataset-specific tuning or backpropagation through the backbone models. However, not all models are equally relevant for all tasks. To address this, we introduce a mechanism that leverages ComBo's joint multi-backbone probing to efficiently evaluate each backbone's task-relevance, enabling both practical model comparison and improved performance through selective adaptation. On the 19 tasks of the VTAB-1k benchmark, ComBo outperforms previous probing methods, matches or surpasses more expensive alternatives, such as distillation-based model merging, and enables efficient probing of tuned models. Our results demonstrate that ComBo offers a practical and general-purpose framework for combining diverse representations from multiple FMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".