REVIEW 1 cited by
LENSLLM: Unveiling Fine-Tuning Dynamics for LLM Selection
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
LENSLLM: Unveiling Fine-Tuning Dynamics for LLM Selection
read the original abstract
The proliferation of open-sourced Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse downstream tasks necessitates efficient model selection, given the impracticality of fine-tuning all candidates due to computational constraints. Despite the recent advances in LLM selection, a fundamental research question largely remains nascent: how can we model the dynamic behaviors of LLMs during fine-tuning, thereby enhancing our understanding of their generalization performance across diverse downstream tasks? In this work, we propose a novel theoretical framework that provides a proper lens to assess the generalization capabilities of LLMs, thereby enabling accurate and efficient LLM selection for downstream applications. In particular, we first derive a PAC-Bayesian Generalization Bound that unveils fine-tuning dynamics of LLMs and then introduce LENSLLM, a Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK)-based Rectified Scaling Model that enables accurate performance predictions across diverse tasks while maintaining computational efficiency. Extensive empirical results on 3 large-scale benchmarks demonstrate that our model achieves up to 91.1% accuracy and reduces up to 88.5% computational cost in LLM selection, outperforming 5 state-of-the-art methods. We open-source our proposed LENSLLM model and corresponding results at LensLLM.io.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Enough is as good as a feast: A Comprehensive Analysis of How Reinforcement Learning Mitigates Task Conflicts in LLMs
RL-trained LLMs keep most of their skills after weight merging, while SFT-trained LLMs drop about 19% on average, because RL keeps parameter updates smaller and more task-compatible.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.