Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) of large language models often suffers from task interference and catastrophic forgetting. Recent approaches alleviate this issue by isolating task-critical parameters during training. However, these methods represent a static solution to a dynamic problem, assuming that parameter importance remains fixed once identified. In this work, we empirically demonstrate that parameter importance exhibits temporal drift over the course of training. To address this, we propose Evolving Parameter Isolation (EPI), a fine-tuning framework that adapts isolation decisions based on online estimates of parameter importance. Instead of freezing a fixed subset of parameters, EPI periodically updates isolation masks using gradient-based signals, enabling the model to protect emerging task-critical parameters while releasing outdated ones to recover plasticity. Experiments on diverse multi-task benchmarks demonstrate that EPI consistently reduces interference and forgetting compared to static isolation and standard fine-tuning, while improving overall generalization. Our analysis highlights the necessity of synchronizing isolation mechanisms with the evolving dynamics of learning diverse abilities.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Conceptual illustration of parameter isolation strategies. (a) Standard SFT: parameters are updated globally, leading to interference. Arrows denote task-specific gradient directions. (b) Static Isolation: The pre-computed mask fails to cover critical parameters (red) as their importance distribution shifts during training. (c) Dynamic Isolation (Ours): The protection mask is dynamically updated to follow the trajectory of parameter importance.
Figure 2: Overview of the Evolving Parameter Isolation (EPI) framework. The model trains on heterogeneous data (Left) while the EPI Engine (Middle) continuously estimates parameter sensitivity using exponential moving averages of squared gradients. These signals drive the Evolutionary Locking mechanism (Right), which dynamically updates isolation masks from Tstart to Tend to protect shifting task-critical parameters.
Figure 3: Conceptual illustration of temporal smoothing. The Instantaneous Gradient (Gray) exhibits high variance. In contrast, the EMA Estimate (Orange) effectively filters high-frequency noise, revealing the underlying importance trend ( St ).
Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of necessity of Layer-wise Normalization. (a) Without normalization, global ranking causes severe bias, concentrating protection only on layers with high gradient norms (Red bars). (b) Our Adaptive Layer-wise Normalization rectifies this by projecting scores to a local scale, resulting in a uniform distribution of critical parameters (Blue bars) regardless of the layer’s position.
Figure 5: Dynamic Mask Evolution. Instead of a fixed constraint, the protection mask evolves periodically ( T1→T3 ). Critical parameters (Red) are locked to prevent forgetting, while redundant ones (Grey) are released. This creates a moving shield that adapts to the temporal drift of parameter importance.
Base Model
Method
GSM8K
CodeAlpaca
LogiQA
Alpaca
UltraChat
Avg. Norm.
LLaMA-3-8B
Full SFT
55.6
28.3
60.8
7.8
8.1
7.32
Multi-Stage (Random)
56.9
27.9
61.5
8.0
8.2
7.44
Multi-Stage (Heuristic)
57.4
28.7
62.1
7.7
8.0
7.48
Static Isolation ( p=1% )
59.2
29.4
63.0
8.1
8.3
7.68
EPI (Ours)
61.8
31.2
65.4
8.4
8.6
7.98
Mistral-7B
Full SFT
53.1
26.7
58.9
7.5
7.9
7.05
Table 1: Main experimental results on heterogeneous SFT benchmarks. EPI consistently outperforms standard SFT, multi-stage training, and static parameter isolation across all base models. Dynamic isolation yields the largest gains on reasoning-intensive tasks (GSM8K, LogiQA) and improves overall generalization as measured by Avg. Norm. Score. Background colors denote the top-3 methods (Darker Orange indicates higher performance).
Mask Strategy
LLaMA-3
Gemma-2
Static Mask ( p=1% )
7.68
8.21
Static Mask + Layer Norm
7.82
8.36
EPI (w/o Layer Norm)
7.83
8.35
EPI (Full)
7.98
8.57
Table 2: Ablation of mask strategy. Both layer-wise normalization and dynamic evolution contribute meaningfully, and their combination yields the strongest performance.
Strategy
Avg. Norm. Score
Per-Layer Fixed Budget
7.82
Global Raw Scores
7.71
EPI (Ours)
7.98
Table 3: Comparison of alternative allocation strategies on LLaMA-3-8B. Both per-layer fixed quotas and global raw ranking underperform our layer-wise normalization plus global top- p% selection.
Smoothing Factor
LLaMA-3
Gemma-2
No EMA (Instantaneous)
7.81
8.39
EMA ( β=0.9 )
7.90
8.50
EMA ( β=0.99 )
7.98
8.57
Table 4: Effect of Temporal Accumulation. A high smoothing factor ( β=0.99 ) is essential to filter stochastic noise and reveal stable importance trends.
Figure 6: Sensitivity Analysis to Isolation Ratio ( p ). The plot illustrates the average normalized score across different isolation ratios for LLaMA-3 and Gemma-2. Both models exhibit a distinct peak performance at p=1.0% , representing an optimal trade-off between retaining prior knowledge (Stability) and adapting to new tasks (Plasticity).
Update Interval ( H )
Avg. Norm. Score
100
7.92
500
7.98
1000
7.95
2000
7.89
Table 5: Sensitivity to the mask-update interval H on LLaMA-3-8B. H=500 provides the best trade-off between responsiveness and stability.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Base Model
Method
Forgetting Ratio (FR, %) ↓
Avg. FR
GSM8K
Code
LogiQA
Alpaca
UChat
LLaMA-3-8B
Full SFT (Multi-task)
12.6
10.4
9.8
7.5
6.9
9.44
Multi-Stage (Random)
9.7
8.9
8.1
6.8
6.2
7.94
Multi-Stage (Heuristic)
8.9
8.2
7.5
6.5
6.0
7.42
Static Isolation ( p=1% )
6.1
5.8
5.2
4.5
4.1
5.14
EPI (Ours, p=1% )
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.2
3.9
4.66
Appendix
Table 6: Forgetting analysis across tasks and base models. Lower FR (%) indicates better retention of previously learned knowledge. EPI consistently reduces forgetting compared to standard SFT and static isolation baselines.
Base Model
Method
Task Gradient Conflict (TGC) ↓
Avg. TGC
Code
LogiQA
Alpaca
Code-Logi
Code-Alp
LLaMA-3-8B
Full SFT (Multi-task)
0.42
0.38
0.36
0.33
0.30
0.358
Multi-Stage (Random)
0.31
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.262
Multi-Stage (Heuristic)
0.28
0.25
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.234
Static Isolation ( p=1% )
0.18
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.138
EPI (Ours, p=1% )
0.15
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.108
Appendix
Table 7: Seesaw effect analysis via Task Gradient Conflict (TGC). Lower TGC signifies reduced task interference. EPI minimizes gradient conflicts more effectively than full multi-task and static baselines.
Task
Input Prompt
Full SFT Output
Static Mask Output
EPI Output (Ours)
GSM8K (Reasoning)
A train leaves city A at 9:00 AM… (Time/Speed problem)
1:30 PM
1:35 PM
1:30 PM, with step-by-step reasoning showing distance covered by each train.
CodeAlpaca (Python)
Write a function that returns Fibonacci numbers up to n.
Returns first 5 numbers only, ignores n.
Correct function but inefficient loop, O(n2) .
Correct and efficient function using iterative approach, handles all n.
Alpaca (Instruction)
Summarize the plot of ’Pride and Prejudice’ in 2-3 sentences.
Misses key relationships, inconsistent with timeline.
Basic summary, minor omissions.
Concise and accurate summary including major characters, timeline, and main conflict.
UltraChat (Dialogue)
User: How do I cook pasta perfectly?
Overgeneralized advice, misses boiling details.
Correct steps but unordered.
Step-by-step guidance with tips for timing, salt, and texture; natural conversational tone.
Appendix
Table 8: Qualitative comparison of model outputs. EPI demonstrates superior reasoning consistency and completeness compared to baselines, effectively mitigating the trade-off between forgetting and learning.
Base Model
Method
GSM8K
CodeAlpaca
LogiQA
Alpaca
UltraChat
Avg. Norm.
LLaMA-3-8B
Full SFT
55.6 ± 0.4
28.3 ± 0.5
60.8 ± 0.5
7.8 ± 0.2
8.1 ± 0.1
7.32 ± 0.06
Static Isolation
59.2 ± 0.6
29.4 ± 0.4
63.0 ± 0.4
8.1 ± 0.1
8.3 ± 0.1
7.68 ± 0.04
EPI (Ours)
61.8 ± 0.3
31.2 ± 0.3
65.4 ± 0.5
8.4 ± 0.1
8.6 ± 0.1
7.98 ± 0.03
Gemma-2-9B
Full SFT
58.5 ± 0.5
30.1 ± 0.6
64.0 ± 0.6
8.3 ± 0.2
8.5 ± 0.2
7.78 ± 0.07
Static Isolation
62.2 ± 0.4
31.5 ± 0.5
66.4 ± 0.5
8.6 ± 0.1
8.8 ± 0.1
8.21 ± 0.05
EPI (Ours)
65.0 ± 0.4
33.2 ± 0.5
69.1 ± 0.4
8.9 ± 0.1
9.1 ± 0.1
8.57 ± 0.04
Appendix
Table 9: Main results with standard deviations (3 runs). EPI consistently outperforms baselines with small standard deviations across tasks, demonstrating that the gains reported in the main text are statistically robust rather than artifacts of a favorable seed.
Isolation Ratio p
GSM8K
CodeAlpaca
LogiQA
Alpaca
UltraChat
Avg. Norm.
0.5%
58.7
28.9
62.3
8.0
8.2
7.59
1%
59.2
29.4
63.0
8.1
8.3
7.68
2%
58.4
28.5
61.8
7.8
7.9
7.42
5%
56.9
27.6
60.1
7.4
7.6
7.12
Appendix
Table 10: Static Isolation Ratio Sweep on LLaMA-3-8B . Static isolation peaks at p=1% and drops sharply for p≥2% , directly supporting over-protection as a failure mode of static masks.
Training Progress
25%
50%
75%
100% (Final)
Mask Overlap (%)
78.3
62.1
51.4
44.7
Appendix
Table 11: Temporal drift in isolation masks. The Jaccard overlap between the initial mask and later masks steadily decreases during training.
Table 13: Task-conditioned overlap of important parameters. Different tasks rely on partially distinct critical parameter subsets.
Method
p=0.5%
p=1%
p=2%
p=5%
Static Isolation
8.2
8.3
7.9
7.6
EPI
8.4
8.6
8.4
8.2
Appendix
Table 14: UltraChat performance vs. isolation ratio . EPI maintains higher new-task plasticity at large p by releasing outdated parameters, whereas static isolation exhibits substantially larger degradation.
Training Stage
Pearson r
Spearman ρ
Early
0.72
0.68
Middle
0.75
0.71
Late
0.73
0.69
Appendix
Table 15: Correlation between online importance and old-task sensitivity (LLaMA-3-8B). We sample parameters across layers, estimate true old-task sensitivity via small Gaussian perturbations (measured as ΔLold on a held-out batch), and correlate it with our online importance score. Strong correlations persist across all training stages.
In real-world deployment, LLMs are often adapted continually across tasks to keep LLMs up-to-date in production, where new fine-tuning should preserve previously learned skills. However, indiscriminately mixing tasks can dilute task specialization, while sequential fine-tuning (full-parameter or low rank adaptation) often causes catastrophic forgetting due to destructive overwriting. Replay-based continual tuning and maintaining separate task-specific adapters can mitigate forgetting, but introduce additional compute, storage, and management overhead. Recognizing the redundancy of LLM parameters for any single task, we reframe continual task adaptation as task-specific parameter discovery via adaptation-aware probing: a short warm-start probe exposes a task's adaptation trace, enabling us to identify and isolate the small subset of parameters essential for each task to mitigate catastrophic forgetting. Building on this view, we introduce TRACE, a novel approach for discovering Task-specific paRameters via Adaptation-aware probing for Continual finE-tuning. We perform a short warm-start fine-tune to derive task-specific core parameters by comparing the warm-started and pre-trained models. Core parameters are identified via two strategies: importance scoring (L2 norm and Fisher Information) and specificity analysis (cosine similarity of parameter updates). In continual fine-tuning settings, only the active task's core parameters are updated while others remain frozen, preserving prior knowledge. We conduct extensive experiments across multiple standard benchmarks to demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed method. Additionally, we validate the generalization of our method through a cross-model and scale transferability study, demonstrating a "small-to-large" paradigm that guides the fine-tuning of large-scale models under resource constraints.
Xiaosong Han, Ke Chen, Xindi Dai +7
Key Laboratory of Symbolic Computation and Knowledge Engineering of the Ministry of Education · College of Computer Science and Technology, Jilin University Changchun, China · College of Software, Jilin University Changchun, China +3
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated excellent performance in general language understanding, generation and other tasks. However, when fine-tuning for specific domain tasks, the general knowledge accumulated in the pre-training phase is often partially overwritten or forgotten due to parameter updates, which severely limits the generalization ability and transferability of LLMs. Traditional fine-tuning strategies mostly train on the entire parameter space, ignoring the heterogeneity of model parameters, that is, some parameters are extremely important for general tasks, while other parameters are more sensitive to specific tasks. To alleviate the above problems, this paper innovatively proposes a parameter element importance evaluation method, which divides parameters into "core parameters" and "non-core parameters" by distinguishing the importance of parameters for general language ability tasks and specific domain tasks, and fixes the core parameters during fine-tuning, and only fine-tunes the non-core parameters. Extensive experiments on scientific, medical and physical tasks using GPT-J and LLaMA-3 show that our method can mitigate catastrophic forgetting while enhancing the adaptability of the model.
Weijie Wan, Jiangjiang Zhao
Shortest Path Technology · China Mobile Communications Group Co.,Ltd
Parameter-efficient finetuning (PEFT) has become the standard approach for adapting large language models, yet evaluations largely emphasize downstream accuracy while overlooking the retention of pretrained capabilities. We argue that PEFT should be assessed through the stability-plasticity dilemma: the trade-off between target-task adaptation and resistance to forgetting. We introduce PEFT-Arena, a benchmark that jointly measures downstream performance and general capability retention. Across methods, we find distinct stability-plasticity profiles; under comparable parameter budgets, orthogonal finetuning achieves the most favorable Pareto frontier. To explain these differences, we analyze PEFT updates from two geometric perspectives. In weight space, spectral analysis reveals how parameterizations interact with the pretrained singular-value structure. In activation space, retention metrics show whether finetuning preserves or distorts general-capability representations, with forgetting linked to non-isometric representation distortion. Finally, an analysis shows that final SFT checkpoints often overshoot a better target-retention operating point. Inspired by this, we present case studies of a post-hoc improvement with path-wise rewinding.
Yangyi Huang, Ruotian Peng, Zeju Qiu +4
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Westlake University · MPI for Intelligent Systems