Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in specialized university courses, but control-systems questions require coordinated terminology, notation, derivations, and stepwise explanations. Direct general-purpose responses may be inconsistently structured and hard to verify. Using exercises and reference solutions from a Linear Control Systems course, we built a supervised fine-tuning dataset of 360 system-user-assistant conversations. We applied LoRA to Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. With identical data splits, inference settings, and evaluation protocols, we compared base and fine-tuned models and tested LoRA ranks r=4, 8, and 16. Evaluation used ROUGE, BERTScore, and structured-output features to measure reference-answer similarity and stability of the Solution-Method-Teaching Points format. LoRA improved both similarity and structured-output stability at both sizes. On the current test set, 7B-r16 achieved the highest ROUGE-L (0.4093) and BERTScore-F1 (0.8643), while r=8 offered a better balance between performance and parameter efficiency. Bootstrap resampling showed ROUGE-L gains of 0.0764 [0.0613, 0.0915] for 3B-r16 and 0.0874 [0.0687, 0.1042] for 7B-r16; both intervals exceeded zero, indicating stable textual-similarity improvements on the current test set. These results suggest LoRA can align open-source instruction-tuned models more closely with the language and pedagogical organization of course reference answers. However, the metrics mainly capture textual similarity and formatting consistency, not domain-specific reasoning or mathematical correctness, which require expert assessment and task-specific rubrics.
Figures & tables
Data subset
Number of samples
Proportion
Primary purpose
Training set
270
75%
Parameter learning during LoRA fine-tuning
Validation set
36
10%
Model selection and hyperparameter tuning
Test set
54
15%
Evaluation of generalization to unseen questions
Table 1: Dataset split for the control systems course question-answering dataset
Item
Description
Data sources
Exercises and reference solutions from Linear Control Systems textbooks
Language
English
Data format
JSONL (chat-style)
Sample structure
System-user-assistant dialogue; four-part user message (Problem Description / Subproblems / Additional Information / Constraints); three-level assistant response (Solution-Method-Teaching Points)
Total samples
360
Training set
270 (75%)
Table 2: Basic information about the control systems course question-answering dataset
Figure 1: Overall research workflow
Model
Experimental role
Purpose of comparison
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
Smaller instruction-tuned model
Evaluate the feasibility of LoRA course adaptation under resource constraints
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Larger instruction-tuned model
Evaluate the effects of greater model size on answer similarity and structured output
Table 3: Base models and experimental purposes
Parameter
Setting
Base models
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct; Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Fine-tuning method
LoRA (SFT)
Training epochs
5
Maximum sequence length
2048
Training batch size
1
Evaluation batch size
1
Table 4: Parameters for LoRA-based supervised fine-tuning
Metric category
Metric
Measured property
Textual similarity
ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, ROUGE-L
Lexical overlap between generated responses and reference answers
Semantic similarity
BERTScore-F1
Semantic proximity between generated responses and reference answers
Structured output
has_solution, has_method, has_teaching_points
Whether a response follows the pedagogical organization
Proportion of test samples exhibiting each structural feature
Table 5: Evaluation metrics for the control systems course question-answering models
Model size
LoRA rank
Adapter parameters (M)
Training loss
Best validation loss
Validation-token accuracy (%)
Validation entropy
Best step
3B
4
1.843
0.8552
0.8830
78.09
0.8457
170
3B
8
3.686
0.7826
0.8269
79.03
0.7733
170
3B
16
7.373
0.7239
0.8080
79.36
0.7465
170
7B
4
2.523
0.8156
0.7992
79.57
0.7557
170
7B
8
5.046
0.7403
0.7599
80.31
0.7135
170
7B
16
10.093
0.6800
0.7330
80.71
0.6865
170
Table 6: Training and validation results across model sizes and LoRA ranks
Figure 2: Validation loss across model sizes and LoRA ranks.
Figure 3: Automatic evaluation metrics for the base and LoRA-fine-tuned models. (a) ROUGE-1; (b) ROUGE-2; (c) ROUGE-L; (d) BERTScore-F1
Figure 4: Bootstrap confidence intervals for ROUGE improvements.
Figure 5: Bootstrap confidence intervals for improvements in structured-output coverage.
Model size
LoRA rank
Adapter parameters (M)
Δ ROUGE-L
Δ BERTScore-F1
Δ ROUGE-L per million parameters
3B
4
1.843
+0.0334
+0.0028
0.0181
3B
8
3.686
+0.0579
+0.0151
0.0157
3B
16
7.373
+0.0764
+0.0314
0.0104
7B
4
2.523
+0.0407
+0.0212
0.0161
7B
8
5.046
+0.0726
+0.0325
0.0144
7B
16
10.093
+0.0874
+0.0332
0.0087
Table 7: Comparison of LoRA rank and parameter efficiency
Figure 6: Relationship among LoRA rank, absolute ROUGE-L improvement, and parameter efficiency. Although r=16 achieved the largest absolute gain, the ROUGE-L gain per adapter parameter decreased as rank increased.
Figure 7: Coverage of structured instructional output in the base and LoRA-fine-tuned models.
We investigate whether commonly available LoRA variants have an advantage over basic LoRA in multilingual instruction tuning. Experiments involving LoRA and four other variants on two datasets across diverse target languages show that there is no significant advantage in using more complex LoRA variants instead of basic LoRA, with respect to balancing cross-lingual transfer and knowledge retention. An analysis of hidden embeddings reveal that layer-wise language representation remains largely similar across LLMs fine-tuned with different LoRA techniques, suggesting that architectural novelty of LoRA techniques may not translate into better cross-lingual adaptation.
Thamali Wijewardhana, Napoleon H. Reyes, Surangika Ranathunga
School of Mathematical and Computational Sciences Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
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
We present an innovative multi-stage optimization strategy combining reinforcement learning (RL) and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to enhance the pedagogical knowledge of large language models (LLMs), as illustrated by EduQwen 32B-RL1, EduQwen 32B-SFT, and an optional third-stage model EduQwen 32B-SFT-RL2: (1) RL optimization that implements progressive difficulty training, focuses on challenging examples, and employs extended reasoning rollouts; (2) a subsequent SFT phase that leverages the RL-trained model to synthesize high-quality training data with difficulty-weighted sampling; and (3) an optional second round of RL optimization. EduQwen 32B-RL1, EduQwen 32B-SFT, and EduQwen 32B-SFT-RL2 are an application-driven family of open-source pedagogical LLMs built on a dense Qwen3-32B backbone. These models remarkably achieve high enough accuracy on the Cross-Domain Pedagogical Knowledge (CDPK) Benchmark to establish new state-of-the-art (SOTA) results across the interactive Pedagogy Benchmark Leaderboard and surpass significantly larger proprietary systems such as the previous benchmark leader Gemini-3 Pro. These dense 32-billion-parameter models demonstrate that domain-specialized optimization can transform mid-sized open-source LLMs into true pedagogical domain experts that outperform much larger general-purpose systems, while preserving the transparency, customizability, and cost-efficiency required for responsible educational AI deployment.