S0 Tuning: Zero-Overhead Adaptation of Hybrid Recurrent-Attention Models
Organizations: Indiana University
Abstract
Using roughly 48 execution-verified HumanEval training solutions, tuning a single initial state matrix per recurrent layer, with zero inference overhead, outperforms LoRA by +10.8 pp (p < 0.001) on HumanEval. The method, which we call S0 tuning, optimizes one state matrix per recurrent layer while freezing all model weights. On Qwen3.5-4B (GatedDeltaNet hybrid), S0 tuning improves greedy pass@1 by +23.6 +/- 1.7 pp (10 seeds). On FalconH1-7B (Mamba-2 hybrid), S0 reaches 71.8% +/- 1.3 and LoRA reaches 71.4% +/- 2.4 (3 seeds), statistically indistinguishable at this sample size while requiring no weight merging. Cross-domain transfer is significant on MATH-500 (+4.8 pp, p = 0.00002, 8 seeds) and GSM8K (+2.8 pp, p = 0.0003, 10 seeds); a text-to-SQL benchmark (Spider) shows no transfer, consistent with the trajectory-steering mechanism. A prefix-tuning control on a pure Transformer (Qwen2.5-3B) degrades performance by -13.9 pp under all nine configurations tested. On Qwen3.5, a per-step state-offset variant reaches +27.1 pp, above both S0 and LoRA but with per-step inference cost. Taken together, the results show that recurrent state initialization is a strong zero-inference-overhead PEFT surface for hybrid language models when verified supervision is scarce. The tuned state is a ~48 MB file; task switching requires no weight merging or model reload. Code and library: https://github.com/jackyoung27/s0-tuning.
Figures & tables
| Method | Params | Qwen3.5-4B (GatedDeltaNet) | FalconH1-7B (Mamba-2) | Overhead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | — | 48.8% | 40.5% | — |
| LoRA (best config) | 4.7M / 22.2M | 61.5% 5.1% | 71.4% 2.4% | Merge |
| State-offset | 12.6M / — | 74.8% 3.6% | — | Per-step |
| S 0 (ours) | 12.6M / 34.6M | 72.2% 1.7% | 71.8% 1.3% | None |
| Method | Params | Mean | Std | Seeds negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LoRA r24 | 4.7M | pp | 5.1 pp | 0/10 |
| LoRA r48 | 9.4M | pp | 17.0 pp | 1/10 collapsed |
| LoRA r64 | 12.6M | pp | 18.9 pp | 8/10 |
| S 0 | 12.6M | pp | 1.7 pp | 0/10 |
| Method | Mean | Std | Gap vs. main LoRA | Overhead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LoRA (best) | pp | 5.1 pp | — | Merge |
| S 0 | pp | 4.0 pp | pp | None |
| State-offset | pp | 3.6 pp | pp | Per-step |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Hyperparameter | S 0 | LoRA |
|---|---|---|
| Learning rate | (Qwen) / (Falcon) | |
| Optimizer | Adam | Adam |
| Training steps | 20 | 50 |
| Batch size | 1 | 1 |
| L2 regularization | — | |
| Alpha scaling | 0.07 (GDN) / 0.65 (Mamba-2) | — |
| Layers Tuned | # Layers | Greedy | Degraded | Params |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early (0–7) | 8 | pp | 2 | 4.2M |
| Middle (8–15) | 8 | pp | 3 | 4.2M |
| Late (16–23) | 8 | pp | 0 | 4.2M |
| All (0–23) | 24 | pp | 4 | 12.6M |
| Seed | LoRA | Degraded |
| 42 | pp | 0 |
| 7 | pp | 0 |
| 123 | pp | 0 |
| 1337 | pp | 10 |
| 999 | pp | 6 |
| 314 | pp | 11 |
| Seed | Baseline | Tuned | Degraded | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 40.5% | 72.6% | pp | — |
| 7 | 40.5% | 70.2% | pp | — |
| 123 | 40.5% | 72.6% | pp | — |
| Mean | 40.5% | 71.8% | pp | — |
| Method | pass@1 | pass@5 | pass@10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 41.9% | 64.2% | 69.4% |
| LoRA (r24, 4.7M) | 56.3% | 64.1% | 66.7% |
| S 0 (12.6M) | 70.3% | 84.5% | 88.5% |
| Method | Seed | pass@1 | pass@5 | pass@10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 7 | 42.1% | 63.6% | 69.0% |
| 42 | 43.5% | 64.6% | 70.2% | |
| 123 | 40.1% | 64.3% | 69.0% | |
| LoRA r24 | 7 | 56.4% | 63.4% | 65.5% |
| 42 | 56.4% | 64.7% | 67.9% | |
| 123 | 56.0% | 64.1% | 66.7% |
Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning
Parameter-efficient fine-tuning adapts pretrained models by updating small parameter subsets or lightweight modules instead of all weights.
See all 609 papers