Residual connections are a fundamental component of transformer architectures, yet the roles of the attention and feed-forward residual pathways remain poorly understood when considered independently. This paper presents a reproducibility study of partial residual ablations in Pre-LN GPT-style transformers trained at two scales (10M and 124M parameters). I compare four architectural configurations by selectively removing the attention residual connection, the feed-forward residual connection, or both. Across all experiments, removing the attention residual (FFNOnly) consistently causes deterministic collapse to the No-Residual performance floor. In contrast, removing the feed-forward residual (AttnOnly) exhibits a reproducible recovery effect at 10M scale under a controlled 8-seed deterministic study, while its behavior at 124M remains unresolved because of substantial seed variance. During the investigation, I identified and corrected an experimental measurement confound in runtime gain scaling and document both the failed intermediate reproduction and the subsequent controlled replication. Based on the empirical results, I propose a cross-position routing hypothesis to explain the observed asymmetry while explicitly distinguishing confirmed findings from unresolved questions. To support reproducibility, I release the complete source code, experiment configurations, checkpoints, training logs, and all experimental results, including intermediate non-reproducing runs.
Fang et al. (2025) introduced a null-space constrained projection, named AlphaEdit, for locate-then-edit knowledge editing methods, theoretically guaranteeing that edits do not disrupt previously preserved knowledge, and reports substantial gains over existing editing methods on LLaMA3, GPT2-XL, and GPT-J. In this work, we present a reproducibility study of AlphaEdit, reproducing its reported results under the original experimental setup and extending the evaluation along three axes: new model architectures, additional downstream benchmarks, and substantially longer sequential editing horizons. We successfully reproduce AlphaEdit's reported metrics across the original models, though we identify a discrepancy in the reported fluency and consistency metric. Extending AlphaEdit to newer model families, we find that its advantage does not generalize uniformly, which we trace to architectural assumptions in the locate-then-edit paradigm that are violated by these newer models. We further stress-test AlphaEdit's central sequential-editing claim by extending the number of edits well beyond those evaluated in the original paper, and find that performance, which is stable at the originally reported scale, degrades as edits reach a much higher count, indicating that the null-space projection's protection against catastrophic forgetting is bounded rather than unconditional. Finally, we extend evaluation of edited models on three extra benchmarks, namely, BoolQ, HellaSwag, and XSTest, and we find that large-scale sequential editing degrades both general downstream task competence and safety-relevant refusal behavior. Our results confirm that AlphaEdit performs as reported within its original scope, while showing that its core theoretical guarantees are sensitive to model architecture and editing scale in ways that have practical implications for its deployment.