Weight-space programming vs LoRA on 4 bugs: precise one-neuron patches that don't persist

kevinpl07 · reddit · 2026-11-07

Full baseline study responding to the Sparks of Weight-Space Programming thread: 4 real bugs on open models (1B–4B chat models plus Whisper-small), each fix rewriting a single neuron in the last MLP layer.

Held-out results (bug rate, lower is better):

| Bug | Base | Edit | LoRA | Prompt | Random |

|---|---|---|---|---|---|

| Fake bios (Gemma-3-4B) | 98% | 16% | 30% | 6.8%¹ | 97% |

| Prompt injection (Qwen3-4B) | 26% | 2.5% | 0% | 13% | 27% |

| Filler endings (Gemma-3-1B) | 59% | 23% | 8.3% | 29% | 62% |

| Words in silence (Whisper) | 84% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 6.7%² | 84% |

¹ prompt baseline drops correct real-person facts from 57% to 20%

What holds up:

Self-critique: mostly probing plus steering; the novelty is that an LLM agent can find these from raw weights — blind Opus passed 3/3 on Whisper and language mixing, but 0/3 on ResNet-50 and 0/6 on Phi-3 over-refusal; the agent's own edit only got 98%→68% on fake bios. A scorer bug (curly apostrophes) that overstated the prompt baseline was fixed midway.

Write-up: kevinpl07.github.io/weight-patching · Code: github.com/kevinpl07/weight-patching

Related event: Testing Weight-Space Programming: LLM Weight Edits Work but Fade Fast(2 posts)→

Original post →

More from Research

Research channel →