Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is a widely used objective for aligning language models from preference data, with the coefficient $β$ commonly interpreted as controlling the KL constraint to a reference policy. We show that $β$ entangles two distinct roles: it governs the effective inverse preference-noise scale and simultaneously rescales the optimization dynamics, coupling this scale with the effective step size. As a consequence, at a fixed learning rate the achieved policy deviation is non-monotone in $β$: it vanishes in a dead zone at small $β$, reaches a peak at an intermediate value, and decreases again for larger $β$. Moreover, standard DPO loss values are not comparable across $β$: runs with nearly identical loss curves can differ several-fold in KL divergence from the reference model. This entanglement obscures the role of $β$, increases sensitivity to hyperparameter choices, and complicates learning-rate scheduling. We propose a centered-softplus reformulation that is argmin-equivalent to DPO for $β>0$, while making the inverse preference-noise-scale and learning-rate effects explicit and independently tunable. The normalized centered-softplus objective also admits a continuous $β\to0$ endpoint that reduces to a linear preference-margin objective.
Many few-shot adaptation methods for vision-language models classify with a convex combination of the zero-shot text prototype and the mean of the K labelled image features, with a single blending ratio routinely tuned on held-out labels, often on the test set itself. We ask what the family's own bias-variance justification invites: what is the right ratio, can it be estimated without validation data, and is finding it where the performance is? First, the ratio minimising prototype mean-squared error has a closed form whose support-set plug-in is exactly a positive-part James-Stein coefficient shrinking towards the text prototype. Across 4,800 cells (ten datasets, five backbones including SigLIP, five shot counts, five seeds, four prompt tiers) this theoretically optimal ratio is a reliable estimate of the wrong quantity: on the 950 primary-tier cells where it is defined it trails a test-set-oracle ratio by 8.5 points. It saturates near 1, discarding the text prior for a nearest-class-mean classifier, because 78% of the text-image prototype distance it treats as bias is a class-independent offset that the arg max largely cancels. We prove the mechanism and bound its share of the damage at 26% by a counterfactual. Second, leave-one-out on the support set alone sets a ratio landing within 0.9 points of the oracle blend, so it is estimable without validation data. Third, validation-free linear probes beat even the oracle-tuned blend: CLAP by +1.9 points and LP++ by +1.5 on average, and at K >= 4 all four validation-free baselines sit above the oracle, the linear probes by margins excluding zero. These results locate the ceiling in the model class, not the hyperparameter: the ratio can be set near-optimally for free, and it is still not where the performance is. Code, cached features, per-cell records: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Liangzhi-Li/clipbench-blending
Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM) improves generalization by seeking parameters whose loss is robust to local adversarial perturbations, but the quantitative mechanism underlying its implicit bias toward flat minima remains unclear. In particular, the perturbation radius $ρ$ is typically treated as an isolated tuning parameter, despite defining the neighborhood in which SAM measures sharpness. We analyze mini-batch SAM near an interpolating minimum through linear stability. Under local linearization and gradient-noise alignment assumptions, we prove that every linearly stable minimum satisfies $λ_{\max}\leq\sqrt[3]{bΓ/(2ρη^2)}$, where $λ_{\max}$ is the largest Hessian eigenvalue, $b$ is the batch size, $η$ is the learning rate, and $Γ$ bounds the gradient norm. The bound quantitatively characterizes SAM's implicit flatness bias: holding the other quantities fixed, a smaller batch size, a larger learning rate, or a larger radius restricts linearly stable SAM to flatter minima. It also exposes a necessary trade-off: $ρ$ should be large enough to promote flatness, yet remain local enough to preserve the approximation and stable training. We validate this prediction in a controlled study of 900 models on CIFAR-100 with ResNet-18 and VGG-19, where increasing $ρ$ is consistently associated with a smaller largest Hessian eigenvalue across batch-size and learning-rate settings. Finally, we instantiate the analysis in Taylor-Locality Controlled SAM (TLC-SAM), which adjusts $ρ$ using the observed Taylor-approximation error and further reduces the top Hessian eigenvalue relative to fixed-radius SAM. Our results provide quantitative hyperparameter bounds and a stability--locality perspective for analyzing and designing SAM variants.