Skip to content

Reducing the Adaptation Gap Through Reachable Fisher Geometry

Sep 2026 · 0 citations
Computer Science

Abstract

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) determines not only how many parameters are trained, but also which local directions a model can move in, so similar adapters can affect subgroup losses differently. Since curvature matrices are infeasible to form at adapter scale, scalar summaries such as the Fisher trace are often used instead. We study what the trace reveals and what it loses through the reachable Fisher: each subgroup's full-model Fisher pulled back through the adapter Jacobian. Under likelihood losses, it represents the Gauss-Newton curvature accessible to the adapter, and its trace can be computed from score-gradient norms without forming the full matrix. Under matched subgroup gradients, a positive-definite reachable-Fisher difference, with a margin exceeding the Hessian-Fisher defect, implies that every sufficiently small nonzero model-changing update increases the signed gap. In contrast, the restricted operator norm determines worst-case quadratic change, while a matrix-free Frobenius discrepancy bounds its reachable-Fisher component. Trace alone cannot certify definiteness or control matrix mismatch. Equal traces rule out a positive-definite difference but can still hide large operator discrepancies. Across 306 single-seed models, higher trace accompanies greater subgroup difficulty in 75.7 percent of 1,218 eligible evaluations, while trace matching reduces the best-worst subgroup gap in all 30 dataset-encoder-adapter combinations. However, held-out audits show that operator discrepancy decreases in 23 of 30 combinations, while the unbiased squared-Frobenius statistic decreases in only 16 of 30. Fisher trace is therefore a scalable diagnostic and training heuristic, but not a certificate of local gap behavior or matrix alignment.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Conference Open access Jun 2018

Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents

This paper investigates developing real-world perception for active agents, proposes Gibson Environment for this purpose, and showcases a set of perceptual tasks learned therein.

F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He et al. · 1,069 citations · ⚡112
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.

Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...

Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al. · 302 citations · ⚡60

KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization

This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff et al. · 195 citations · ⚡28

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.