Skip to content
← Back to explorer

GRASS: Gradient-based Adaptive Layer-wise Importance Sampling for Memory-efficient Large Language Model Fine-tuning

Kaiyuan Tian, Yu Tang, Gongqingjian Jiang, Baihui Liu, Yifu Gao, Xialin Su, Linbo Qiao, Dongsheng Li · Apr 9, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Recent

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Apr 9, 2026, 5:04 AM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Apr 9, 2026, 5:04 AM

Recent

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence unavailable

Abstract

Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements. Low-rank adaptation methods mitigate this challenge by updating only a subset of parameters. However, these approaches often limit model expressiveness and yield lower performance than full-parameter fine-tuning. Layer-wise fine-tuning methods have emerged as an alternative, enabling memory-efficient training through static layer importance sampling strategies. However, these methods overlook variations in layer importance across tasks and training stages, resulting in suboptimal performance on downstream tasks. To address these limitations, we propose GRASS, a gradient-based adaptive layer-wise importance sampling framework. GRASS utilizes mean gradient norms as a task-aware and training-stage-aware metric for estimating layer importance. Furthermore, GRASS adaptively adjusts layer sampling probabilities through an adaptive training strategy. We also introduce a layer-wise optimizer state offloading mechanism that overlaps computation and communication to further reduce memory usage while maintaining comparable training throughput. Extensive experiments across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that GRASS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving an average accuracy improvement of up to 4.38 points and reducing memory usage by up to 19.97\%.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

Automatic metrics

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Accuracy

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Extensive experiments across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that GRASS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving an average accuracy improvement of up to 4.38 points and reducing memory usage by up to 19.97\%.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements.

Human Data Lens

Structured extraction is still processing. Below are provisional signals inferred from abstract text only.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are currently inferred heuristically from abstract text.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements.

Generated Apr 9, 2026, 5:04 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models is constrained by substantial GPU memory requirements.
  • Low-rank adaptation methods mitigate this challenge by updating only a subset of parameters.
  • However, these approaches often limit model expressiveness and yield lower performance than full-parameter fine-tuning.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.