LLM Fine-Tuning
LLM: Large Language Model
Overview
LLM fine-tuning studies how additional training can adapt a pretrained model to new tasks, specialized knowledge, languages, or desired behaviors. Common approaches include supervised fine-tuning on curated or synthetic examples, preference optimization and reinforcement learning, and parameter-efficient methods such as LoRA and QLoRA that update only a small part of the model. Researchers also develop data-selection methods and selective layer or neuron updates to reduce training cost, and evaluate results on settings such as reasoning, code generation, multilingual tasks, and domain-specific question answering. A central challenge is gaining reliable task performance without losing general abilities or safety; results depend on the data, model, and evaluation, and retrieval can sometimes be a better alternative for adding knowledge.
Latest papers
758 papers76 papers in the last four weeks, up 15% on the four weeks before. 0.4% of all new papers.
Counterfactual Modeling with Fine-Tuned LLMs for Health Intervention Design and Sensor Data Augmentation
Thunder-KoNUBench: A Corpus-Aligned Benchmark for Korean Negation Understanding
Shuttling Compiler for Trapped-Ion Quantum Computers Based on Fine-Tuned Large Language Models
Understanding Negative Learning in Large Language Model Fine-tuning
Aligning LLMs with Biomedical Knowledge using Balanced Fine-Tuning
Bilevel Data Curation for LLM Fine-tuning: Offline Selection and Online Self-Refining Generation
Fine-Tune, Then Rectify
Can Fine-Tuning Erase Your Edits? On the Fragile Coexistence of Knowledge Editing and Adaptation
AyurParam: A State-of-the-Art Bilingual Language Model for Ayurveda
LuxIT: A Luxembourgish Instruction Tuning Dataset from Monolingual Seed Data
Data Provenance Auditing of Fine-Tuned Large Language Models with a Text-Preserving Technique
marks'' using invisible Unicode characters organized into (cue'', reply'') pairs. During an audit, prompts containing only cue'' fragments are issued to trigger regurgitation of the corresponding ``reply'', indicating document usage. To control false positives, we compare against held-out counterfactual marks and apply a ranking test, yielding a verifiable bound on the false positive rate. Empirically, we obtain a true positive rate of 96.7% at 0% false positive rate and reply regurgitation rates exceeding 28% per document with only 40 (4%) watermarked documents. The approach is minimally invasive, scalable across many sources, robust to standard processing pipelines, and achieves high detection power even when marked data is a small fraction of the fine-tuning corpus.