r/LocalLLaMA maps a transformer “danger zone” where duplicating layers starts breaking models

A detailed self-post in r/LocalLLaMA is getting attention because it tries to answer a question that comes up constantly in local-model circles: if duplicating transformer layers can sometimes improve reasoning without retraining, where does that trick actually work, and where does it break? The post, which collected 72 upvotes and 21 comments, reports a weekend of experiments run entirely on an Apple Silicon M3 Ultra with 512GB of memory via MLX. No cloud APIs, no training run, and no vague “it feels smarter” claims: the author used automated coding benchmarks across several model families.

The claimed danger zone

The headline finding is a recurring danger zone around roughly 50% to 56% of model depth. According to the post, duplicating or interfering with layers in that range consistently degraded performance and sometimes destroyed output quality across multiple architectures. The author argues that these layers behave less like reusable reasoning blocks and more like routing infrastructure. In the post’s language, they are “load-bearing.” Remove them, double them, or transplant them, and the rest of the model starts to fail.

The most concrete example came from the Hybrid 9B experiments. Baseline performance was 4/10 on the benchmark, but duplicating layers at 75% to 84% depth reportedly raised the score to 7/10. Duplicating layers at 56% to 65% depth, by contrast, dropped performance to 2/10. The author also reports that double-stacking two good circuits, triple-stacking the best block, or deleting the so-called danger zone all made results worse. The lesson is not that more extra thinking is always better. It is closer to this: one extra pass can help, but pushing past that threshold can collapse the circuit.

Why the post stands out

The scope is broader than a single anecdote. The thread compares Dense 32B, Hybrid 9B, MoE 30B, Dense 3B, and cross-model transplant 7B setups. The claimed pattern changes by architecture: dense models favored one depth band, MoE models appeared to benefit earlier in the stack, and models below roughly 3B parameters showed little upside. Cross-model layer transplant was the clearest failure case. Even when tensor dimensions matched, inserting layers from one model family into another reportedly caused severe degradation or outright collapse, which the author interprets as evidence that internal representations are too model-specific for naive swapping.

The comments add useful caution. One of the higher-rated replies says it is inherently suspicious to expect architectural surgery without retraining to improve performance reliably, and that any apparent gains may reflect a narrow benchmark rather than a stable rule. That caveat matters. This is a self-reported experiment, not a peer-reviewed paper, and the methodology is tuned toward coding tasks. Still, the post is valuable because it turns vague Frankenmerge lore into testable claims: there may be optimal duplication zones, there may be a mid-depth region that should be left alone, and cross-model transplant may be much less promising than within-model duplication.