As large language models (LLMs) scale to billions of parameters, full-parameter fine-tuning becomes compute- and memory-prohibitive. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) mitigates this issue by updating only a small set of task-specific parameters while keeping the base model frozen. Among PEFT approaches, low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is widely adopted; however, it enforces a uniform rank across layers despite substantial variation in layer importance, motivating {layerwise} rank allocation. Recent adaptive-rank variants (e.g., AdaLoRA) allocate ranks based on importance scores, yet typically rely on instantaneous gradients that capture only local sensitivity, overlooking non-local, pathwise effects within the same layer, which yields unstable and biased scores. To address this limitation, we introduce IGU-LoRA, an adaptive-rank LoRA that (i) computes within-layer Integrated Gradients (IG) sensitivities and aggregates them into a layer-level score for rank allocation, and (ii) applies an uncertainty-aware scheme using exponential moving averages with deviation tracking to suppress noisy updates and calibrate rank selection. Theoretically, we prove an upper bound on the composite trapezoidal rule approximation error for parameter-space IG under a pathwise Hessian-Lipschitz condition, which informs the quadrature budget. Across diverse tasks and architectures, IGU-LoRA consistently outperforms strong PEFT baselines at matched parameter budgets, improving downstream accuracy and robustness. Ablations confirm the contributions of pathwise within-layer sensitivity estimates and uncertainty-aware selection to effective rank allocation. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/withyou12/igulora.git
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of frameworks: left to right—(a) LoRA, (b) AdaLoRA, (c) the proposed IGU-LoRA. IGU-LoRA builds on LoRA and AdaLoRA, introducing integrated gradients (IG) to compute parameter importance scores. Please zoom in 300% for better clarity.
Figure 2: Comparison of parameter importance scoring methods. (a) The simple gradient method fails in saturated regions, assigning near-zero importance. (b) Integrated gradients compute importance by integrating along the path from initial to final parameter values, capturing the actual total contribution.
Method
# Params
CoLA
SST-2
MRPC
QQP
STS-B
MNLI
QNLI
RTE
Avg.
(mcc)
(acc)
(acc-f1)
(acc-f1)
(corr)
(acc)
(acc)
(acc)
Full FT
355M
69.19
95.63
89.46
91.10
91.60
90.01
94.03
86.94
88.50
Housbly-Adapter
0.35M
67.80
94.38
89.75
89.41
91.08
90.28
93.52
84.36
87.57
P-tuning v2
0.31M
67.35
93.13
88.49
88.63
90.41
89.19
91.94
82.42
86.45
(IA) 3
0.33M
68.62
93.82
89.54
89.78
90.84
89.87
92.60
82.75
87.23
SSP
0.36M
69.89
94.96
90.08
90.14
91.37
90.42
94.16
84.88
88.24
Table 1: Performance comparison of fine-tuning methods on the GLUE task using RoBERTa-large. All results are reported as the median over 5 runs with different random seeds. Bold and Underline indicate the best and the second-best results. The metric for each task is explained in Appendix I.5 .
Method
# Params
BoolQ
ARC-e
ARC-c
GSM8K
AQuA
Avg.
(acc)
(acc)
(acc)
(acc)
(acc)
Full FT
494.0M
81.74
74.82
54.98
34.64
48.72
58.98
Housbly-Adapter
9.0M
78.36
71.04
53.26
28.67
42.85
54.84
LoRA
8.8M
78.94
72.78
54.38
31.42
45.33
56.57
AdaLoRA
8.9M
80.32
73.90
54.23
33.27
46.58
57.67
GoRA
8.8M
79.24
71.20
51.91
32.07
45.81
56.04
Table 2: Performance comparison of fine-tuning methods on the Mathematical and common-sense reasoning task using the Qwen-2.5-0.5B. All results are reported as the median over 5 runs with different random seeds. Bold and Underline indicate the best and the second-best results.
Table 5
Figure 3: The impact of different hyperparameters M,N,β1,β2 on performance when fine-tuning the Qwen2.5-0.5B model on the Boolq dataset. Please zoom in 300% for better clarity.
Figure 4: The impact of different hyperparameters M,N,β1,β2 on performance when fine-tuning the Qwen2.5-0.5B model on the GSM8K dataset. Please zoom in 300% for better clarity.
Figure 5: Rank allocation by IGU-LoRA on the Qwen-2.5-0.5B backbone after fine-tuning for the BoolQ and GSM8K tasks. Please zoom in 300% for better clarity.
Figure 6: Performances across different initial rank budgets. The x -axis denotes the initial rank r0 , while the y -axis indicates the corresponding task performance. Please zoom in 300% for better clarity.
Llama-2-7B
Method
# Params
SST-2
RTE
QNLI
BoolQ
COPA
Avg.
Full FT
6738M
95.83
92.11
92.54
87.30
93.01
92.16
Adapter
21.2M
94.15
82.12
93.10
87.03
91.10
89.50
P-tuning v2
20.9M
93.42
79.62
92.64
84.73
90.30
88.14
SSP
40.0M
94.14
83.11
93.10
87.11
91.65
89.82
LoRA
20.0M
94.12
83.37
93.10
87.34
91.33
89.85
Table 5: PEFT methods comparison on different backbones. Left: GLUE accuracy (%) with Llama-2-7B. Right: BoolQ and GSM8K accuracy (%) with Llama-3-8B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-2.5-7B. Results are reported as the median over 5 random seeds. Bold and underline indicate the best and the second-best results.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
learning rate
batch size
Max. Sequence Length
# epochs
γ
ti
ΔT
tf
MNLI
5×10−4
128
512
25
0.1
500
20
10000
RTE
1×10−3
32
512
25
0.1
300
5
2500
QNLI
5×10−4
128
512
25
0.1
400
20
10000
MRPC
1×10−3
32
512
25
0.1
300
5
2500
QQP
5×10−4
128
512
25
0.1
500
20
10000
SST-2
1×10−3
64
512
25
0.1
400
20
5000
Appendix
Table 6: Hyperparameter setup of IGU-LoRA for training on different datasets.
Hyperparameter
ϵ
M
N
β1
β2
Value
1×10−6
16
20
0.85
0.85
Appendix
Table 7: Setting of the 5 hyperparameters ( ϵ,M,N,β1,β2 ) in IGU-LoRA.
Module Removed
Rank
Boolq
1
L3_K
10
81.15 (-1.30)
2
L10_V
10
81.12 (-1.33)
3
L3_K / L10_V
10 / 10
80.44 (-2.01)
4
L1_K
5
82.40 (-0.05)
5
L3_V
5
82.35 (-0.10)
6
L1_K / L3_V
5 / 5
82.30 (-0.15)
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study on the impact of removing high-rank and low-rank modules from different layers on Qwen2.5-0.5B model performance. The numbers in parentheses indicate the performance drop compared to the model with no modules removed. The left table and the right table represent results on Boolq and GSM8K, respectively.
Method
Humanities
STEM
Social.
Other
Avg.
Full FT
49.91
41.70
57.53
57.02
51.54
LoRA
46.15
40.84
56.63
56.23
49.94
IGU-LoRA
47.33
41.71
58.12
57.10
51.07
Appendix
Table 9: The generalization performance of fine-tuning the Llama2-7B model on the MMLU benchmark using different methods, reporting the average results over 5 random seeds.
Method
VQAv2
GAQ
NVLR2
COCO Captioning
Avg.
Full FT
66.91
56.72
73.71
112.04
77.35
LoRA
64.32
54.10
71.25
109.56
74.31
DoRA
65.81
54.71
73.14
115.93
77.40
IGU-LoRA
65.78
55.32
73.42
115.36
77.47
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison of different fine-tuning methods on the VQA, GAQ, NVLR2 and COCO datasets using the VL-BART model. The results are averaged over 5 random seeds.
Figure 7: Empirical analysis of importance score statistics during fine-tuning. The plots show the changes in yt , the mean and variance of yt , the first-order lag autocorrelation, and SNRt across training iterations for representative module parameters.
Batch Size
Seed 1
Seed 2
Seed 3
Seed 4
Seed 5
2
82.46
82.47
82.45
82.46
82.45
4
82.45
82.46
82.44
82.45
82.44
8
82.44
82.45
82.43
82.44
82.43
16
82.45
82.46
82.44
82.45
82.44
32
82.40
82.41
82.39
82.40
82.39
Appendix
Table 11: Effect of Batch Size on BoolQ Accuracy across Different Random Seeds
Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) is a widely used approach to parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) of LLMs whose effectiveness depends on rank allocation. Existing adaptive LoRA methods derive ranks from local gradient, activation, or matrix statistics collected before or during fine-tuning; training-time variants add overhead, and local signals reveal little about each module's structural role in information propagation, giving weak global grounding for scarce-capacity allocation. We propose IFCLoRA, a topology-aware method for pre-fine-tuning rank allocation and adapter initialization. Using a small calibration set, IFCLoRA performs intervention tracing on the frozen model and constructs a sparse task-conditioned interaction graph over LoRA target modules. From this graph it extracts a global information-flow topology prior and fuses it with each node's local gradient sensitivity to form a topology-dominant Information-Flow Centrality (IFC) score, measuring participation in task-conditioned multi-hop propagation. The IFC scores then serve as module-level routing signals for one-shot discrete rank allocation under a rank-budget constraint. Reusing response vectors from tracing, IFCLoRA constructs a function-preserving flow-response subspace initialization, giving adapters task-relevant output subspaces. Across all settings, IFCLoRA achieves higher mean scores than standard LoRA with comparable fine-tuning time and peak memory; it requires a one-time offline calibration stage. On GSM8K, IFCLoRA attains the highest mean accuracy among compared PEFT methods on both base models, exceeding standard LoRA by 4.75 percentage points on LLaMA-3.1-8B. Resulting rank allocations are non-uniform and vary across tasks and base models, suggesting that task-conditioned global information-flow topology can serve as a useful structural prior for rank allocation in low-budget PEFT.
Wei Zhang, Xinwu Liu, Yihang Cheng
Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence and New Forms of Education Central China Normal University Wuhan, Hubei, China
Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) is a popular parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) method that restricts weight updates to low-rank adapters, introducing a fixed low-rank inductive bias by optimizing in a low-dimensional subspace. In this work, we question whether a fixed-rank constraint is the most effective inductive bias for parameter-efficient fine-tuning. We introduce Learnable Rank LoRA (LR-LoRA), a PEFT method in which the adapter rank is learned during the training process. Instead of prescribing a uniform rank for all adapter layers, LR-LoRA allows the optimizer to determine the appropriate rank for each layer. Using this approach, we find substantial layer-wise variation in the learned ranks, with the attention and MLP layers in the transformer models exhibiting systematically different rank preferences. Across a range of language understanding and commonsense reasoning benchmarks, LR-LoRA achieves state-of-the-art performance in most settings and consistently outperforms strong PEFT baselines, demonstrating that a learnable rank provides a more flexible and effective inductive bias than fixed-rank adaptations.
Arpit Garg, Simon Lucey, Hemanth Saratchandran
Australian Institute for Machine Learning Adelaide University
Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) assigns a uniform rank to every adapted weight matrix - a practical convenience that ignores a fundamental reality: different layers contribute unequally to task adaptation. We address this with a lightweight engineering solution: before fine-tuning begins, run eight calibration backward passes, compute the gradient variance of each LoRA-B matrix as a proxy for layer informativeness, and redistribute the rank budget proportionally. The resulting adapter is a standard LoRA with a per-layer rank pattern - no new parameters, no training overhead, no changes to serving infrastructure. We implement this via an efficient approximation of the empirical Fisher Information Matrix (eFIM) diagonal, restricted to LoRA adapter matrices only, which reduces memory cost by approximately 256x compared to full-model Fisher estimation. On GLUE with DeBERTa-v3-base, FIM-LoRA matches LoRA (88.6 vs. 88.7) at the same parameter budget, and on commonsense reasoning with LLaMA-3-8B reaches 68.5 vs. 68.7 for LoRA. The per-layer rank maps are interpretable: value projections and early-to-middle layers consistently receive higher rank, consistent with established findings on transformer layer roles.