Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) has become a key strategy for adapting large language models, with recent advances in sparse tuning reducing overhead by selectively updating key parameters or subsets of data. Existing approaches generally focus on two distinct paradigms: layer-selective methods aiming to fine-tune critical layers to minimize computational load, and data-selective methods aiming to select effective training subsets to boost training. However, current methods typically overlook the fact that different data points contribute varying degrees to distinct model layers, and they often discard potentially valuable information from data perceived as of low quality. To address these limitations, we propose Gradient-aligned Sparse Tuning (GAST), an innovative method that simultaneously performs selective fine-tuning at both data and layer dimensions as integral components of a unified optimization strategy. GAST specifically targets redundancy in information by employing a layer-sparse strategy that adaptively selects the most impactful data points for each layer, providing a more comprehensive and sophisticated solution than approaches restricted to a single dimension. Experiments demonstrate that GAST consistently outperforms baseline methods, establishing a promising direction for future research in PEFT strategies.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Difference among (a) layer-selective methods, (b) data-selective methods, and (c) our method. layer-selective methods generate a subset of all layers to be updated with all mini-batch data. Data-selective methods utilize partial mini-batch data to train all layers. Our GAST selects a different subset of data for each layer.
Figure 2: Overall of our proposed Gradient-aligned Sparse Tuning (GAST). During training, every mini-batch exhibits gradient conflicts both among data samples and across model layers. To mitigate these conflicts, GAST uses the gradient of the support set to decide which individual sample should be used to update each layer. This data-layer selection reduces gradient interference and thereby improves both convergence speed and generalization performance.
Method
Adaptiveness
Average
LoRA
-
74.7 (+0.0)
LISA
Layer
75.3 (+0.6)
AdaLoRA
Rank
76.2 (+1.5)
LoRA + RST
Layer
75.8 (+1.1)
LoRA + IST
Layer
76.5 (+1.8)
LoRA + GREATS
Data
76.3 (+1.6)
Table 1: Comparison with different adaptive methods.
Figure 3: Comparison of model convergence with loss curve.
Model
PEFT
BoolQ
PIQA
SIQA
HellaSwag
WinoGrande
ARC-e
ARC-c
OBQA
Avg.
ChatGPT
-
73.1
85.4
68.5
78.5
66.1
89.8
79.9
74.8
77.0
LLaMA 7B
Series
63.0
79.2
76.3
67.9
75.7
74.5
57.1
72.4
70.8
Series + IST
66.2
78.3
74.9
72.2
75.9
75.8
59.0
72.2
71.8
Series + GAST
68.0
79.1
77.8
79.8
78.5
77.4
62.0
74.8
74.7
Parallel
67.9
76.4
78.8
69.8
78.9
73.7
57.3
75.2
72.2
Parallel + IST
68.4
79.1
77.9
70.0
78.9
81.2
62.3
77.6
74.4
Table 2: Comparison across multiple LLMs using different PEFT approaches on eight commonsense reasoning benchmarks. Baseline results for GPT-J and LLaMA are taken from Hu et al. (2023) .
Method
GSM8K
AQuA
MAWPS
SVAMP
Avg.
ChatGPT
56.4
38.9
87.4
69.9
63.2
LoRA
61.0
26.4
91.6
74.4
63.4
LoRA + IST
62.8
31.5
89.9
76.3
64.7
LoRA + GAST
66.4
32.7
91.6
79.4
67.5
Table 3: Comparison with LLaMA3-8B on four math reasoning datasets.
Setting
Data-layer Selection
Average
LoRA
-
74.7
LoRA + GAST
Random Selection
76.4
LoRA + GAST
Top-k Selection
66.4
LoRA + GAST
Sampling-based Selection
77.5
Table 4: The effect of data-layer selection strategy.
Figure 4: Impact of data-layer sparsity in GAST.
Figure 5: (a) Visualization of the sampling probability of mini-batch data points across layers on two different iterations. A deeper red color indicates a higher probability. (b) Distribution of the number of layers each data point is trained on within a mini-batch.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
# Train
# Test
Answer
Commonsense
170K
-
-
BoolQ
9.4K
3,270
Yes/No
PIQA
16.1K
1,830
Option
SIQA
33.4K
1,954
Option
HellaSwag
39.9K
10,042
Option
WinoGrande
63.2K
1,267
Option
Appendix
Table 5: The statistics of datasets for evaluation. # Train and # Test denote the number of training and test samples respectively.
Figure 6: Additional experiment on support set.
Method
Memory Cost
Training Time
LoRA
43.4 GB
10 h
AdaLoRA
46.7 GB
13 h
IST
36.6 GB
10 h
GREATS
58.1 GB
21 h
GAST (memory-efficient)
51.5 GB
19 h
GAST (computation-efficient)
66.9 GB
11.5 h
Appendix
Table 6: Computational cost of GAST on llama-7B with weight memory of 14GB and batch size of 16.
Method
BoolQ
PIQA
SIQA
HellaSwag
WinoGrande
ARC-E
ARC-C
OBQA
AVG
LoRA
68.9
80.7
77.4
78.1
78.8
77.8
61.3
74.8
74.7
LISA*
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
75.3
AdaLoRA*
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
76.2
RST
68.3
82.3
78.1
76.6
80.1
79.9
63.3
77.8
75.8
IST
68.7
81.7
77.3
82.7
78.7
80.6
62.4
80.0
76.5
GREATS
69.6
81.1
78.0
81.0
79.8
79.5
63.8
77.6
76.3
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison on common-sense reasoning benchmarks. Methods marked with * report results from the original papers.
BoolQ
Please answer the following question with true or false, question: is house tax and property tax are same?
Answer format: true/false
the correct answer is true
PIQA
Please choose the correct solution to the question: Extend life of flowers in vase.
Solution1: Add small amount of coffee in vase.
Appendix
Table 8: Instructions format of commonsense reasoning task.
GSM8K
Q: The farm has 30 cows and the zoo has 20 sheep. The zoo has twice as many cows as the farm does. The farm has half as many sheep as the zoo does. How many animals do the farm and zoo have combined?
A: The farm has 30 cows and the zoo has 20 sheep. The zoo has twice as many cows as the farm, so the zoo has 30 cows. The farm has half as many sheep as the zoo, so the farm has 10 sheep. In total, the farm and zoo have 30 cows + 20 sheep + 10 sheep = 60 animals. The answer is 60.
Q: Rayna has 60 more dollars than Kassidy, and Kassidy has 3/4 times as much money as Aurelia. If Arelia has $120, how much would each have if they decided to add together their money and share equally among them?
A: Rayna has 60 more dollars than Kassidy. That means Kassidy has 60 less than Rayna. Kassidy has 3/4 times as much money as Aurelia. That means Aurelia has 4/3 times as much money as Kassidy. The answer is 120.
AQuA
Q: A rectangular piece of 150 sq m has a length which is 1m more than the 4 times the breadth. What is the perimeter of the piece? Answer Choices: (A) 60 m (B) 61 m (C) 62 m (D) 63 m (E) 64 m
Appendix
Table 9: Instructions format of arithmetic reasoning task.
Sparse fine-tuning adapts pretrained models by updating selected parameters, reducing training costs and limiting interference with existing capabilities.
Existing Supervised Fine-Tuning paradigms, particularly Full Parameter Fine-Tuning are often plagued by parameter redundancy, inconsistent data quality, and catastrophic forgetting, which current methods typically address in isolation and lack a unified optimization signal to bridge data selection, parameter updates, and knowledge preservation. To address this, we propose Neuron-Guided Fine-Tuning (NGFT), a holistic framework that leverages neuron activation patterns as a universal proxy to unify the fine-tuning lifecycle. NGFT operates via three synergistic mechanisms: (1) Adaptive Task-Specific Neuron Selection, which identifies essential neurons in a single forward pass to concentrate updates and reduce redundancy; (2) Activation-Based Data Selection, which prioritizes information-dense samples that maximize contribution to key neurons; and (3) Neuron Activation Alignment, a novel loss function that anchors activations to pre-trained states, deepening representation learning and preserving general knowledge. Experimental results across three models across both domain-specific and general benchmarks demonstrate that NGFT significantly outperforms existing mainstream fine-tuning methods in both efficiency and performance, while effectively mitigating catastrophic forgetting.
Zeyu Wu, Junchao Wu, Shudong Liu +8
NLP2CT Lab, Faculty of Information Science and Computing, University of Macau · Alibaba Group · Nanjing University +3
Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements. Low-rank adaptation methods mitigate this challenge by updating only a subset of parameters. However, these approaches often limit model expressiveness and yield lower performance than full-parameter fine-tuning. Layer-wise fine-tuning methods have emerged as an alternative, enabling memory-efficient training through static layer importance sampling strategies. However, these methods overlook variations in layer importance across tasks and training stages, resulting in suboptimal performance on downstream tasks. To address these limitations, we propose GRASS, a gradient-based adaptive layer-wise importance sampling framework. GRASS utilizes mean gradient norms as a task-aware and training-stage-aware metric for estimating layer importance. Furthermore, GRASS adaptively adjusts layer sampling probabilities through an adaptive training strategy. We also introduce a layer-wise optimizer state offloading mechanism that overlaps computation and communication to further reduce memory usage while maintaining comparable training throughput. Extensive experiments across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that GRASS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving an average accuracy improvement of up to 4.38 points and reducing memory usage by up to 19.97%.
Kaiyuan Tian, Yu Tang, Gongqingjian Jiang +5
National University of Defense Technology · Information Support Force Engineering University
Targeted data selection has emerged as a crucial paradigm for efficient instruction tuning, aiming to identify a small yet influential subset of training examples for a specific target task. In practice, influence is often measured through the effect of an example on parameter updates. To make selection scalable, many approaches leverage optimizer statistics (e.g., Adam states) as an axis-aligned surrogate for update geometry (i.e., diagonal precondition), implicitly treating parameters as coordinate-wise independent. We show that this assumption breaks down in parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods such as LoRA. In this setting, the induced optimization geometry exhibits strong cross-parameter coupling with non-trivial off-diagonal interactions, while the task-relevant update directions are confined to a low-dimensional subspace. Motivated by this mismatch, we propose GIST (Gradient Isometric Subspace Transformation), a simple yet principled alternative that replaces axis-aligned scaling with robust subspace alignment. GIST recovers a task-specific subspace from validation gradients via singular value decomposition (SVD), projects training gradients into this coupled subspace, and scores examples by their alignment with target directions. Extensive experiments have demonstrated that GIST matches or outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline with only 0.29% of the storage and 25% of the computational time under the same selection budget.
Guanghui Min, Tianhao Huang, Ke Wan +1
Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.