Parameter-efficient fine-tuning is often assumed to preserve pretrained capabilities because it updates only a small number of parameters. We show that this assumption depends strongly on adapter capacity. We study factual acquisition in a controlled OpenStreetMap-derived benchmark where Qwen3-4B must acquire anonymized geographic associations while retaining unrelated capabilities. Comparing full fine-tuning (FFT) with quantized low-rank adaptation (QLoRA) at ranks 8, 16, 32, and 64, we find that rank induces a clear acquisition--retention frontier. Low-rank QLoRA preserves out-of-domain (OOD) performance but acquires fewer facts, whereas higher ranks improve same-fact paraphrase generalization at an increasing cost in performance on unrelated benchmarks. FFT behaves as a conservative baseline: it retains general capabilities well, but does not reach the highest factual-acquisition regime. Distributional, weight-space, and spectral diagnostics mirror this behavioral trade-off, with higher-rank QLoRA moving farther from the pretrained model. A separate math adaptation experiment shows a weaker frontier, suggesting that the effect is most pronounced when adaptation must install new factual associations rather than reinforce skills already supported by pretraining. Code and data are available at https://github.com/zhngstl/new_facts_forgetting.
Figures & tables
Split
Names
EM
Pref. (%)
Δ lp
Train facts
Non-anon.
8.10
71.23
3.87
Train facts
Anon.
2.43
58.46
0.26
Paraph. eval
Non-anon.
15.67
68.98
4.02
Paraph. eval
Anon.
9.89
59.33
0.84
Table 1: Base-model prior diagnostic. Anonymization reduces EM accuracy, gold-answer preference, and log-probability margins, suggesting that real names activate relevant pretrained information. The higher paraphrase EM partly reflects its larger share of constrained-response questions; see Appendix A.1 .
Figure 1: OSM paraphrase accuracy against average OOD performance. Points show final-checkpoint means and error bars show standard deviations over five seeds. Higher-rank QLoRA reaches stronger acquisition but lower retention, while FFT and rank 8 remain closer to the pretrained model.
Figure 2: Model-drift diagnostics for different QLoRA ranks. (a) Higher-rank QLoRA adapters show larger KL divergence from the pretrained model, (b) larger effective weight updates, and (c) larger spectral shifts under the SVD intruder diagnostic. Dashed lines show FFT for comparison. Points show means and error bars show std over five seeds.
Target 75
Target 85
Target 95
Method
Para.
Ret.
Para.
Ret.
Para.
Ret.
FFT
74.9
97.6
76.1
96.9
76.1
96.9
QL r=8
75.7
97.9
79.4
97.5
79.4
97.5
QL r=16
79.3
94.3
85.8
91.1
93.3
89.9
QL r=32
85.2
79.8
85.4
83.0
94.6
73.3
QL r=64
81.0
36.7
83.1
34.3
90.4
38.8
Table 2: Target-acquisition checkpoint comparison. For each target paraphrase accuracy, we select the nearest evaluated checkpoint per seed and method. We report mean achieved paraphrase accuracy and OOD retention as a percentage of base-model OOD performance. The table abbreviates QLoRA as QL.
Method
MATH-500
Minerva
Olympiad Bench
AMC’23
AIME’24
AIME’25
Math Avg.
OOD Avg.
OOD Drop ↓
FFT
78.80
34.56
44.96
60.00
20.00
16.67
42.50
71.12
1.71
QLoRA r=16
77.40
34.19
40.65
60.00
20.00
23.33
42.60
70.61
2.23
QLoRA r=32
78.60
37.13
43.92
62.50
13.33
16.67
42.03
71.25
1.58
Table 3: Math-adaptation results. Pass@1 scores and averages are in percent. OOD averages cover HumanEval, IFEval, TruthfulQA, MMLU-Redux, and BBH; OOD drop is relative to the base Qwen3-4B.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Split
Open-ended
4-choice
Yes/no
Random Chance
Train
1,540 (79.5%)
278 (14.3%)
120 (6.2%)
6.68%
Para.
647 (71.9%)
133 (14.8%)
120 (13.3%)
10.36%
Appendix
Table 4: Response-format composition. Counts and within-split ratios for training and paraphrase splits, with approximate chance EM for each split.
Method
HumanEval
IFEval
TruthfulQA
MMLU-Redux
BBH
OOD Avg.
FFT
79.2 ± 2.2
80.2 ± 0.4
50.5 ± 0.6
72.7 ± 0.2
70.8 ± 1.2
70.7 ± 0.7
QLoRA r=8
78.4 ± 1.8
80.6 ± 1.3
51.6 ± 1.2
73.0 ± 0.1
69.9 ± 2.1
70.7 ± 0.7
QLoRA r=16
70.9 ± 3.0
70.3 ± 1.8
50.3 ± 1.0
69.9 ± 0.2
57.7 ± 4.3
63.8 ± 1.7
QLoRA r=32
59.9 ± 4.0
34.5 ± 5.8
51.6 ± 2.0
59.0 ± 4.3
34.9 ± 6.4
48.0 ± 3.6
QLoRA r=64
23.2 ± 16.5
14.6 ± 2.4
47.7 ± 1.7
37.6 ± 11.5
17.3 ± 4.0
28.1 ± 6.3
Appendix
Table 5: Per-benchmark OOD scores at the final checkpoint (mean ± standard deviation over five seeds). Degradation is broad on HumanEval, IFEval, MMLU-Redux, and BBH; TruthfulQA is comparatively stable.
Hyperparameter
QLoRA
Full fine-tuning
Base model
Qwen3-4B
Training samples
1,938
Epochs
100
Batch size
16
Learning rate
2×10−4
2×10−5
LR scheduler
Linear
Appendix
Table 6: Hyperparameters for the main OpenStreetMap fine-tuning experiments.
Hyperparameter
QLoRA
Full fine-tuning
Base model
Qwen3-4B
Dataset
open-r1-math-220k
Training samples
94k
Epochs
1
Batch size
2×16
Learning rate
1×10−5
2×10−5
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameters for the additional math adaptation experiments.
Recent literature on fine-tuning Large Language Models highlights a fundamental debate. While Full Fine-Tuning (FFT) provides greater representational plasticity, Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) can match or surpass FFT performance while constraining updates to a low-rank space and potentially benefiting from additional regularization. Through empirical evaluation across diverse tasks (SQL, Medical QA, and Counterfactual Knowledge) and varying language models (Gemma-3-1B, Qwen2.5-1.5B, and Qwen2.5-3B), we observe both trends and find that the better static architecture depends on the task and model. Spectral and truncation analyses further show that endpoint compressibility alone does not explain these task differences, suggesting task-score sensitivity and constrained optimization trajectories as possible explanations. To address this challenge, we propose a Mixture of LoRA and Full (MoLF) Fine-Tuning, a unified framework that enables continuous navigation between both training regimes. MoLF dynamically routes updates between FFT and LoRA at the optimizer level to ensure that exact gradient signals are available to both experts throughout training, while only selected experts update their weights. For memory-constrained environments, we also introduce MoLF-Efficient, which freezes base weights and only routes updates among a pair of LoRA experts of potentially varying rank. Our evaluations show that MoLF either improves on or stays within 1.5 percentage points of the better of FFT and LoRA across the nine tested settings, while MoLF-Efficient outperforms both AdaLoRA and AdaMix in eight of nine settings, with gains over the stronger baseline of up to 11.70 percentage points on Fact, 3.13 on Med, and 2.98 on SQL.
Haozhan Tang, Xiuqi Zhu, Xinyin Zhang +3
Carnegie Mellon University · Tsinghua University · Infinigence AI
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.
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