Neuron-Guided Fine-Tuning: Unlocking Efficient Alignment Mechanisms for Large Language Models
Authors: Zeyu Wu, Junchao Wu, Shudong Liu, Runzhe Zhan, Xin Chen, Shu Yang, Yichao Du, Longyue Wang, Weihua Luo, Jinsong Su, Derek F. Wong
Organizations: NLP2CT Lab, Faculty of Information Science and Computing, University of Macau · Alibaba Group · Nanjing University · KAUST · Wuhan University · Xiamen University
Existing Supervised Fine-Tuning paradigms, particularly Full Parameter Fine-Tuning are often plagued by parameter redundancy, inconsistent data quality, and catastrophic forgetting, which current methods typically address in isolation and lack a unified optimization signal to bridge data selection, parameter updates, and knowledge preservation. To address this, we propose Neuron-Guided Fine-Tuning (NGFT), a holistic framework that leverages neuron activation patterns as a universal proxy to unify the fine-tuning lifecycle. NGFT operates via three synergistic mechanisms: (1) Adaptive Task-Specific Neuron Selection, which identifies essential neurons in a single forward pass to concentrate updates and reduce redundancy; (2) Activation-Based Data Selection, which prioritizes information-dense samples that maximize contribution to key neurons; and (3) Neuron Activation Alignment, a novel loss function that anchors activations to pre-trained states, deepening representation learning and preserving general knowledge. Experimental results across three models across both domain-specific and general benchmarks demonstrate that NGFT significantly outperforms existing mainstream fine-tuning methods in both efficiency and performance, while effectively mitigating catastrophic forgetting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed Ngft framework. It consists of three components: (I) Task-Knowledge Neuron Selection, which identifies sparse, stably activated neurons via coefficient of variation analysis; (II) Activation-Based Data Selection, which filters representative samples based on neuron activation intensity; and (III) Neuron-Level Alignment, which updates only critical neurons using gradient masking and incorporates a Neuron Alignment Loss to achieve deep alignment, thereby improving task performance while mitigating catastrophic forgetting.
GSM8K
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
42.91
23.27
30.68
CF
–
68.62
–
FPFT
Test
77.48
78.99
80.81
84.91
34.49
35.17
36.68
37.78
36.12
37.53
36.92
40.21
CF
57.24
56.25
56.31
58.09
65.96
64.33
64.33
57.88
62.18
65.85
62.30
58.10
Strong Baseline
Test
80.81
83.01
84.22
85.75
33.70
36.24
36.98
38.24
36.45
38.34
38.96
41.21
Table 1: Performance Comparison of Ngft with Zero-Shot, FPFT, and Strong Baseline (Data Whisperer + NCFT + CE Loss, represent the most SOTA baseline for data selection, neuron selection, and loss function optimization) when training with top 1%, 5%, 10%, and full GSM8K, DialogSum, and BioInstruct data. The Test Metric measures in-domain performance, while the CF Metric assesses average performance on MMLU, BBH, and TyDiQA to reflect forgetting mitigation. Bold and underline indicates best Test and CF performance.
GSM8K
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Method
1%
5%
10%
1%
5%
10%
1%
5%
10%
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Random
77.48 / 55.95
78.99 / 55.91
80.81 / 55.44
34.49 / 65.72
35.17 / 62.61
36.68 / 65.02
36.12 / 63.60
37.53 / 63.52
36.92 / 62.33
CCS
80.14 / 55.53
81.20 / 56.31
82.11 / 56.89
34.44 / 66.21
36.00 / 63.28
36.74 / 64.63
37.23 / 64.02
37.99 / 62.87
38.51 / 61.68
Nuggets
78.47 / 55.44
80.51 / 55.34
82.87 / 57.06
34.65 / 66.34
36.02 / 62.12
35.99 / 65.37
36.96 / 63.83
36.75 / 63.20
37.67 / 62.91
LESS
80.14 / 55.89
81.05 / 56.11
82.03 / 56.27
34.96 / 65.98
35.78 / 63.99
36.62 / 65.12
36.88 / 64.55
37.21 / 63.77
38.09 / 62.15
Table 2: Performance (Test / CF) Comparison of Ngft with Data Selection Baselines when training with top 1%, 5%, and 10% of the GSM8K, DialogSum, and BioInstruct data. The Test Metric measures in-domain performance, while the CF Metric assesses average performance on MMLU, BBH, and TyDiQA to reflect the model’s ability to mitigate forgetting. Bold indicates the best Test performance, and underline indicates the best CF performance.
Method
GSM8K
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Random
62.17 / 63.31
29.87 / 63.08
32.12 / 62.90
MathNeuro
82.87 / 67.05
36.47 / 62.01
38.61 / 61.78
NeFT
83.57 / 65.09
37.93 / 61.84
40.47 / 62.52
NCFT
85.75 / 67.20
38.24 / 62.39
41.21 / 62.37
NgftNS
87.57 / 67.28
38.76 / 68.29
41.69 / 66.68
Table 3: Performance (Test / CF) Comparison of NgftNS with Neuron Selection Baselines on full data.
Figure 2: Impact of Neuron Alignment Loss on model performance and ablation on intervention timing.
Figure 3: Impact of neuron analysis scope (all FFN neurons or Task-Knowledge Neurons) on data selection performance.
Figure 4: Comparison of anchor activation vector effectiveness for optimizing Neuron Alignment Loss across three data selection methods: random selection, NGFT selection, and the full dataset.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
BioInstruct
DialogSum
GSM8K
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
7.20%
9.33%
14.67%
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
5.28%
8.23%
12.18%
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3
1.19%
14.42%
17.03%
Appendix
Table 4: Neuron selection ratios of \textscNgftNS across different models and tasks.
Model
BioInstruct
DialogSum
GSM8K
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
41.83 ( ↑ 0.61 )
38.45 ( ↑ 0.21 )
86.81 ( ↑ 1.05 )
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
40.95 ( ↑ 0.11 )
38.77 ( ↑ 0.19 )
80.60 ( ↑ 2.96 )
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3
38.80 ( ↓ 0.04 )
36.96 ( ↑ 0.09 )
58.41 ( ↑ 0.56 )
Appendix
Table 5: Experimental results of NCFT method on three models with neuron selection ratios from NgftNS using full dataset.
Method
GSM8K
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Nugget
1.73
2.83
2.35
CCS
0.93
1.16
1.08
LESS
1.54
2.07
2.21
Data Whisperer
0.41
0.64
0.81
Ngft
0.08
0.11
0.12
Speedup
21.6 ×
25.72 ×
19.58 ×
Appendix
Table 6: STR metrics of different data selection methods on the Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct model. A lower STR indicates lower time complexity for the method.
Method
GSM8K
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Accuracy
CF
ROUGE-L
CF
ROUGE-L
CF
Full Parameter
84.91
58.09
37.78
57.88
40.21
58.10
LoRA
83.40
65.83
37.61
63.31
39.57
64.74
QLoRA
82.79
66.41
37.10
64.10
38.94
65.12
DoRA
85.90
66.47
38.25
63.73
41.15
65.01
Ngft
87.64
67.10
39.41
64.21
42.27
65.34
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison between Ngft and PEFT methods on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
Figure 5: Performance comparison of neurons selected by different Coefficient of Variation thresholds on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Llama3.1-8B-Instruct.
Figure 6: Performance comparison across different intervention timings of Neural Alignment Loss on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Llama3.1-8B-Instruct.
Section
GSM8K
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Only Cross-Entropy
Task-Knowledge Neurons
2.98×10−4
4.54×10−4
6.81×10−4
Non-Task-Knowledge Neurons
2.64×10−4
4.22×10−4
6.67×10−4
Cross-Entropy + Neuron Alignment Loss
Task-Knowledge Neurons
2.71×10−4
4.26×10−4
6.36×10−4
Non-Task-Knowledge Neurons
1.89×10−4
3.77×10−4
4.48×10−4
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of changes in Task-Knowledge and Non-Task-Knowledge Neurons of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct after fine-tuning with different loss functions.
Figure 7: Analysis of In-Domain Performance and Time Overhead of the Ngft Framework on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct Under Different Configurations. Specifically, NgftNS fine-tunes only the Task-Knowledge Neurons; NgftNS+NL incorporates a Neuron Alignment Loss on this basis; NgftNS+DS(10%) fine-tunes the aforementioned neurons using only 10% of the selected data; while NgftNS+NL+DS(10%) combines both the 10% data selection and the Neuron Alignment Loss.
Method
GSM8K
DialogSum
BioInstruct
FPFT
84.91 / 1.00
37.78 / 1.00
40.21 / 1.00
NgftNS
87.57 / 1.11
38.82 / 1.13
41.69 / 1.15
NgftNS+NL
87.64 / 1.87
39.41 / 1.92
42.27 / 1.97
NGFTNS+DS(10%)
85.06 / 0.21
37.37 / 0.20
40.43 / 0.21
NgftNS+NL+DS(10%)
86.13 / 0.72
38.16 / 0.75
40.97 / 0.81
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of in-domain performance and time cost (Score / Normalized Time Cost) for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct under Different Ngft Configurations.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
42.91
23.27
30.68
MMLU
–
74.14
–
BBH
–
65.74
–
TyDiQA
–
65.99
–
FPFT
Test
77.48
78.99
80.81
84.91
34.49
35.17
36.68
37.78
36.12
37.53
36.92
40.21
Appendix
Table 10: Performance Comparison of Ngft with Zero-Shot, FPFT, and Strong Baselines (Data Whisperer + NCFT + CE Loss represent the SOTA baselines for data selection, neuron selection, and loss function optimization. ) when training with top 1%, 5%, 10%, and full GSM8K, DialogSum, and BioInstruct data.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
24.03
15.95
17.22
CF
–
39.88
–
FPFT
Test
31.18
32.67
35.92
39.30
28.95
30.72
31.58
34.88
28.39
29.68
31.71
36.40
CF
32.07
31.39
31.53
30.17
28.51
27.08
25.94
18.01
32.40
26.99
24.57
11.82
Strong Baseline
Test
40.96
42.79
44.55
47.56
32.46
33.70
34.00
36.40
32.24
34.37
34.78
39.10
Appendix
Table 11: Performance (Test / CF) Comparison on Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct, Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct, and Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct. The Test Metric measures in-domain performance, while the CF Metric assesses average performance on MMLU, BBH, and TyDiQA to reflect the model’s ability to mitigate forgetting. Bold indicates the best Test performance, and underline indicates the best CF performance.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
24.03
15.95
17.22
MMLU
–
46.87
–
BBH
–
32.31
–
TyDiQA
–
40.48
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
32.62
34.62
37.56
39.30
30.51
32.25
32.89
34.88
30.22
31.75
33.08
36.40
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of performance improvements on the Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
37.44
21.70
27.50
MMLU
–
66.36
–
BBH
–
56.29
–
TyDiQA
–
55.44
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
62.03
64.30
65.24
67.24
34.45
36.13
36.60
37.19
37.51
38.68
39.13
41.14
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison of performance improvements on the Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
42.91
23.27
30.68
MMLU
–
74.14
–
BBH
–
65.74
–
TyDiQA
–
65.99
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
80.41
81.68
83.26
84.91
33.97
36.05
37.14
37.78
38.35
38.60
39.64
40.21
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison of performance improvements on the Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
54.81
34.07
38.93
MMLU
–
79.80
–
BBH
–
69.25
–
TyDiQA
–
67.48
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
85.75
85.82
87.42
86.43
34.27
36.53
38.00
38.82
38.45
38.62
38.86
41.52
Appendix
Table 15: Comparison of performance improvements on the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3
Zero-shot
Test
25.24
20.46
21.40
MMLU
–
61.67
–
BBH
–
65.74
–
TyDiQA
–
54.29
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
40.96
43.98
45.85
57.24
30.45
33.38
34.09
36.42
25.42
30.32
32.62
38.14
Appendix
Table 16: Comparison of performance improvements on the Mistral-7B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Llama3.2-1B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
12.51
14.02
22.59
MMLU
–
46.00
–
BBH
–
38.42
–
TyDiQA
–
43.69
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
32.15
33.20
34.41
38.66
31.70
33.32
34.52
36.92
31.96
34.63
35.52
38.50
Appendix
Table 17: Comparison of performance improvements on the Llama3.2-1B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Llama3.2-3B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
29.45
15.12
26.88
MMLU
–
60.45
–
BBH
–
58.61
–
TyDiQA
–
62.50
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
62.25
67.40
68.46
70.97
33.31
36.13
37.09
38.21
35.47
37.56
38.53
41.49
Appendix
Table 18: Comparison of performance improvements on the Llama3.2-3B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
GSM
DialogSum
BioInstruct
Model
Method
Metric
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
1%
5%
10%
Full
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
Zero-shot
Test
36.22
16.66
27.53
MMLU
–
68.51
–
BBH
–
69.90
–
TyDiQA
–
67.37
–
\textscNgftDS+FPFT
Test
63.50
72.32
73.26
77.71
34.74
35.62
36.64
38.10
34.02
36.96
37.76
40.57
Appendix
Table 19: Comparison of performance improvements on the Llama3.1-8B-Instruct model using different Ngft components individually and in combination.
Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) has become a key strategy for adapting large language models, with recent advances in sparse tuning reducing overhead by selectively updating key parameters or subsets of data. Existing approaches generally focus on two distinct paradigms: layer-selective methods aiming to fine-tune critical layers to minimize computational load, and data-selective methods aiming to select effective training subsets to boost training. However, current methods typically overlook the fact that different data points contribute varying degrees to distinct model layers, and they often discard potentially valuable information from data perceived as of low quality. To address these limitations, we propose Gradient-aligned Sparse Tuning (GAST), an innovative method that simultaneously performs selective fine-tuning at both data and layer dimensions as integral components of a unified optimization strategy. GAST specifically targets redundancy in information by employing a layer-sparse strategy that adaptively selects the most impactful data points for each layer, providing a more comprehensive and sophisticated solution than approaches restricted to a single dimension. Experiments demonstrate that GAST consistently outperforms baseline methods, establishing a promising direction for future research in PEFT strategies.
Kai Yao, Zhenghan Song, Kaixin Wu +5
1Ant Group · 2Cornell University · University of Liverpool +2
Continual fine-tuning is essential for large language models (LLMs) to dynamically adapt to real-world environments, yet it inevitably suffers from catastrophic forgetting, particularly the performance degradation of previous tasks and LLMs' general-purpose knowledge. Although existing methods, such as orthogonal gradient projection, mitigate the forgetting across various fine-tuning tasks, they fundamentally fail to preserve pre-training LLMs' inherent general-purpose knowledge because the original data and gradients of off-the-shelf pre-training LLMs required by these methods are strictly unknown and highly diverse. To bridge this critical gap, we propose EoupCT, a novel framework designed to Estimate and Orthogonalize Unknown Pre-training gradients for Continual LLM fine-Tuning. Specifically, EoupCT estimates pre-training gradients by dynamically generating pseudo data that is most susceptible to forgetting for new tasks through a learnable soft prompt equipped with Gumbel-Softmax relaxation. Furthermore, we formulate a multi-objective optimization problem and introduce a first-order efficient Pareto optimizer that jointly optimizes LLM parameters and the soft prompt, rigorously enforcing orthogonality between new task updates and the estimated pre-training gradients. Extensive experiments across multiple LLMs demonstrate that EoupCT effectively preserves both task-specific proficiency and inherent general-purpose knowledge, successfully mitigating the catastrophic forgetting.
Bing Wang, Changchun Li, Xin-Qiang Cai +4
College of Computer Science and Technology, Jilin University · Key Laboratory of Symbolic Computation and Knowledge Engineering, MoE, Jilin University · RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project +2
We present Adjacent Possible Exploration (APE), a selective fine-tuning method for adapting large language models that systematically explores parameter modifications while maintaining model stability. Inspired by evolutionary optimization principles, APE evaluates multiple candidate parameter updates through fine-tuning on small data subsets and accepts only those exceeding a performance threshold. Unlike standard fine-tuning that follows single gradient directions, APE implements a filtered selection process that prevents destabilizing parameter changes while enabling systematic improvement. Our method achieves 33.9% BLEU improvement and 36.2% perplexity reduction on news summarization tasks while using minimal computational resources. The approach provides a practical framework for controlled model adaptation that balances performance gains with representational stability.