cs.CLAug 5, 2026

Energy- and Memory-Efficient PEFT Methods for Personalized On-Device SLMs on Consumer GPUs

Authors: Kuanysh Akhmetzhanov, Jurn-Gyu Park

Abstract

Despite rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), deploying and personalizing them on resource-constrained devices remains impractical due to high VRAM, time, and energy costs. Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) of Small Language Models (SLMs) offers a promising alternative, yet few studies compare PEFT methods across architectures using both general and personalization benchmarks while accounting for energy consumption. We compare five fine-tuning approaches (Full Fine-Tuning, LoRA, LoRA+, QLoRA, and BitFit) on four SLMs from two families (Transformer-based: TinyLlama-1.1B, Qwen3-1.7B; SSM-based: Mamba-1.4B, Mamba-2-1.3B) across three GLUE tasks (SST-2, QNLI, STS-B) and three LaMP personalization tasks (LaMP-1, LaMP-2, LaMP-3). Each configuration is evaluated with the energy-focused NetScore-E and the memory-focused NetScore-M, the two variants that reflect the constraints binding on-device deployment. Methods are selected with a strict energy-first rule (highest NetScore-E, ties broken by NetScore#). LoRA+ achieves the highest NetScore-E in 19 of 24 configurations and the highest NetScore-M in 13 of 24, and is the selected method in 18 of 24. QLoRA, available only for the Transformer models, cuts peak finetuning VRAM by up to 3.9x relative to LoRA and therefore takes the best NetScore-M in 5 of the 12 Transformer configurations, although its de-quantization overhead leaves it selected in only one of them once energy decides. BitFit and full fine-tuning are almost never competitive on either variant, and TinyLlama-1.1B leads the energy-focused NetScore-E on five of the six benchmarks and the memory-focused NetScore-M on four. These results show that compact SLMs paired with PEFT provide a practical, energy-aware path to personalized on-device deployment, with the optimal method set by the dominant constraint: LoRA+ for energy and QLoRA for memory.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 2, 2026cs.CV

Efficient PEFT Methods with Adaptive Checkpointing for Vision Models and VLMs on Resource Constrained Consumer-GPUs

Modern pretrained vision models achieve strong accuracy but demand substantial GPU memory for fine-tuning, making edge deployment impractical. This paper compares five parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods (Full FT, LoRA, AdaLoRA, QLoRA, BitFit) on Transformers- (ViT-Small, TinyViT) and Mamba-based vision backbones (Vim-Small, MambaVision-T) under an on-device VRAM budget (e.g., 2 GB), together with three gradient-checkpointing strategies (none, static, and a proposed memory-budget-aware adaptive algorithm); and we evaluate three families of foundation-model baselines: zero-shot contrastive vision language models (OpenCLIP, SigLIP), self-supervised vision backbones with lightweight evaluation protocols (DINOv2), and autoregressive VLMs for prompt-based classification (PaliGemma, MobileVLM, SmolVLM). Experiments on CIFAR-100 and DTD report accuracy, training time, energy, and the NetScore family of multi-objective metrics, which we extend with two deployment-aware variants. QLoRA and BitFit cut energy 20-30% at a 1-2% accuracy cost; the adaptive algorithm reduces peak memory 43-79% with 9-30% energy overhead. DINOv2 surpasses fine-tuned models on CIFAR-100 (0.917 vs. 0.897) at a fraction of the energy, while small autoregressive VLMs remain uncompetitive.
Altay Toktassyn, Jurn-Gyu Park
Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning MethodsVision Foundation ModelsResource-Constrained DevicesPeak MemoryVramIntermediate Checkpoints
AskPDF
Jun 17, 2026cs.LG

Techniques for Peak Memory Reduction for LoRA Fine-tuning of LLMs on Edge Devices

Fine-tuning of Large Language Models (LLMs) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) on an end-user's data offers personalized experiences while keeping data private, but faces severe memory constraints on consumer hardware. Peak memory during fine-tuning often exceeds device limits, especially for models with billions of parameters and long-context training data. This paper introduces a suite of complementary techniques to reduce memory footprint without sacrificing model quality: (1) base model quantization with on-the-fly dequantization, (2) memory-efficient checkpointing combining selective activation caching and disk offloading, (3) softmax approximation using semantically relevant token subsets, and (4) logits masking. Experiments on Llama-3.2 3B and Qwen-2.5 3B demonstrate up to 26×26\times and 28×28\times reduction in peak memory, enabling fine-tuning on resource-constrained devices.
Hassan Dbouk, Matthias Reisser, Prathamesh Mandke +2
Peak MemoryLow-Bit Quantization
AskPDF
Jul 23, 2026cs.AI

Profiling Lightweight Large Language Models

Lightweight large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed locally on personal computers and are expected to play a growing role in resource-constrained edge and mobile environments. In such settings, energy consumption, execution time, and memory usage directly affect practical usability, yet existing evaluations of LLM efficiency largely rely on proxy descriptors such as parameter count or FLOPs, often decoupled from task precision. This paper introduces a PTME-based experimental framework for the precision-aware profiling of lightweight LLM inference, jointly measuring Precision, execution Time, peak Memory usage, and Energy consumption through direct hardware-level measurements. The methodology is applied to a representative set of lightweight LLMs executed locally under edge-class resource envelopes on a controlled desktop platform, using benchmarks spanning code generation, mathematical reasoning, and multi-task understanding. We find that static proxy descriptors approximate inference cost well but fail to predict precision. Tightening the resource envelope increases cost without affecting precision, amplifying execution time more strongly than energy and penalizing larger models the most. Moreover, no single model dominates across all PTME dimensions, and a Pareto analysis reveals non-dominated configurations that would be hidden by accuracy-only or efficiency-only assessments, providing practical guidance for selecting models under different resource envelopes. These results show that selecting lightweight LLMs by size, FLOPs, latency, or accuracy alone can select the wrong deployment candidate; PTME profiling exposes configurations that preserve useful accuracy at lower physical cost.
Tomohiro Harada, Enrique Alba, Gabriel Luque
LLM Inference EfficiencyProfiling
AskPDF