Trafy
Research

How Many Bits Can an Adapter Write? Measuring the Capacity and Memorization of Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning

A LoRA adapter is a few megabytes that almost everyone treats as a skill rather than a record of the data behind it. We put that assumption on a scale. Exten...

Kaizhen Tan·Jul 23, 2026·2 min read·Original source ↗
How Many Bits Can an Adapter Write? Measuring the Capacity and Memorization of Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning

How Many Bits Can an Adapter Write? Measuring the Capacity and Memorization of Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning2607.21351AuthorsKaizhen Tan,Heqing Du,Yang FengAbstractA LoRA adapter is a few megabytes that almost everyone treats as a skill rather than a record of the data behind it. We put that assumption on a scale. Extending compression-based memorization analysis to the frozen-base setting, we measure directly, in bits, how much a low-rank adapter writes into a model it never changes. The answer is both smaller than full fine-tuning and less lawful than parameter counting would predict. Adapters store a couple of bits per trainable parameter, well short of a full model's budget, but that figure turns less on how many parameters an adapter carries than on where they sit. Move the same parameter budget from attention into the MLP and it holds nearly twice as much; strip the frozen base of its structure and the capacity all but disappears. Applied to realistic fine-tunes of Qwen2.5, the same instrument shows privacy leakage rising with the bits an adapter writes rather than the parameters it nominally has, and it draws a clean line between supervised and reinforcement learning: the secrets that supervised fine-tuning copies down verbatim, an adapter trained on verifiable rewards never records. Measuring what fine-tuning writes, rather than attacking it after the fact, turns a piece of folklore into a quantity one can design against.ResourcesView on Hugging FaceRead PDFArXiv

Related

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference OptimizationResearch

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization

Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, training models to resist such signals, hides a failure mode: a model that ignores all context looks robust yet is useless when the context is worth trusting. We recast the problem as selective trust and introduce MIST, a human-annotated benchmark that renders each reasoning item under four matched conditions (clean, misleading, correct-context, and irrelevant-context), together with SC2W, a paired metric counting how often a misle

arXiv (cs.AI) · Aug 6, 2026
4 min
Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference OptimizationResearch

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization

Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, tr...

Papers with Code · Aug 6, 2026
1 min
Tracing the Heart: An Evidence-Linked Pipeline for Heart-Failure Feature EngineeringResearch

Tracing the Heart: An Evidence-Linked Pipeline for Heart-Failure Feature Engineering

Electronic health record (EHR) feature engineering is a major bottleneck in clinical research and AI, accounting for 39-45% of data scientists' workload. This is especially pronounced in heart failure, which affects an estimated 6.7 million U.S. adults and requires integrating fragmented EHR data with disease-specific, guideline-based clinical reasoning. Existing rule-based and large language model (LLM)-based approaches offer only partial automation with limited maintainability and evidence traceability. We developed the Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS), an evidence-linked, rubr

arXiv (cs.AI) · Aug 6, 2026
4 min