Rank Measures of Fine-Tuning Updates Need a Noise Baseline

Language model benchmarks are pervasive and computationally-efficient proxies for real-world downstream performance. However, many recent works find that benchmarks often fail to predict downstream utility. While some works have begun diagnosing sources of misalignment, there remain no ways to systematically update benchmarks to align their scores with downstream usage. Towards bridging this gap, we introduce and study benchmark alignment, where we use information about downstream model performance to automatically update benchmarks, specifically aiming to update static benchmarks so they generalizably rank models according to new pairwise preferences. Our experiments involving 4576 language models and 6 benchmarks show that reweighting benchmark items can successfully rank unseen models, even generalizing across model scales in most cases. And while naive alignment unsurprisingly requires large numbers of models and benchmark questions, an oracle experiment suggests this could be reduced to as few as 20 well-chosen models. Overall, our work takes a step towards efficiently aligning benchmark development with downstream tasks.\footnote{All of our code, models, and data are publicly-available.

As large language models (LLMs) scale to billions of parameters, full-parameter fine-tuning becomes compute- and memory-prohibitive. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) mitigates this issue by updating only a small set of task-specific parameters while keeping the base model frozen. Among PEFT approaches, low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is widely adopted; however, it enforces a uniform rank across layers despite substantial variation in layer importance, motivating {layerwise} rank allocation. Recent adaptive-rank variants (e.g., AdaLoRA) allocate ranks based on importance scores, yet typically rely on instantaneous gradients that capture only local sensitivity, overlooking non-local, pathwise effects within the same layer, which yields unstable and biased scores. To address this limitation, we introduce IGU-LoRA, an adaptive-rank LoRA that (i) computes within-layer Integrated Gradients (IG) sensitivities and aggregates them into a layer-level score for rank allocation, and (ii) applies an uncertainty-aware scheme using exponential moving averages with deviation tracking to suppress noisy updates and calibrate rank selection. Theoretically, we prove an upper bound on the composite trapezoidal rule approximation error for parameter-space IG under a pathwise Hessian-Lipschitz condition, which informs the quadrature budget. Across diverse tasks and architectures, IGU-LoRA consistently outperforms strong PEFT baselines at matched parameter budgets, improving downstream accuracy and robustness. Ablations confirm the contributions of pathwise within-layer sensitivity estimates and uncertainty-aware selection to effective rank allocation. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/withyou12/igulora.git

Every supervised fine-tuning run forces the same chain of decisions, such as learning rate, batch size, LoRA or full fine-tuning, how many epochs, which optimiser, and what data to feed the model. Each of these is typically rediscovered from scratch for every new model and dataset. Here we measure them under one instrument: a sweep that varies one lever at a time, and spans dense and mixture-of-experts models in two families (Qwen3 and Llama), on four real-world customer SFT datasets, for both LoRA and full fine-tuning. These datasets give a controlled testbed: each task carries an evaluation built with the customer, and its training data is produced by iterative supervised fine-tuning that refines model outputs until they pass that evaluation, so the supervised target is internally consistent and the task judge we report against is the criterion the data was built to satisfy. We ask how the optimal learning rate and batch size move with model scale, family, and data, and whether one selection rule transfers across them; what LoRA trades against full fine-tuning, and how its rank and alpha set what the adapter can learn; whether validation loss (or other metrics, such as loss landscape flatness) faithfully ranks downstream quality; whether post-training gains scale with model size and data volume, on a model ladder extended through mixtures-of-experts to 235B parameters; how many epochs to train before general instruction-following erodes; and whether a geometry-aware optimiser improves on AdamW. Each recommendation is paired with a measure of its uncertainty.